Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 16 September 2026 – Peter Lowen

[1] Information A17909 provides: “Between 18 November 2025 to 8 June 2026, Peter Gregory Lowen, being the registered owner of BIG TIME CINDY [microchip – 956000012867940] failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound by failing to provide the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed.”

[2] Rule LR22B(2) provides with reference to deregistration of a greyhound from the GRNZ database: “The owner shall take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound and the owner shall provide to GRNZ the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed, in addition to complying with any applicable notification obligations under r 34(5).”

[3] Rule 34(5)(a) states with reference to the requirements in relation to the notification of control and location of a greyhound: “A registered person must notify GRNZ within three business days that a greyhound has come into, or left, the person’s care or custody.”

[4] The penalty provision is r 174(1) which states: “An Adjudicative Committee may as it thinks fit penalise a person found guilty of an offence under the Rules by any one or a combination of the following penalties:

(a) a reprimand (sometimes known as a warning or caution);
(b) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any one offence;
(c) suspension;
(d) disqualification;
(e) cancellation of a registration or a licence; or
(f) warning off.”

[5] The Respondent was served by way of an email from the Informant dated 14.00 hours 24 July 2026.

[6] The Informant has filed a Summary of Facts.

[7] A Minute of the Adjudicative Committee dated 30 July set out a time frame for a teleconference, at which the Respondent was to indicate a plea and whether the Summary of Facts was accepted. It was also to be determined whether the matter could be heard on the papers, rather than as an in person hearing.

[8] The Respondent did not attend the teleconference.

[9] The Respondent later responded on 13 August in an email to the Informant, that he admitted the breach “but with circumstances around me rehoming my dog at the time BIG TIME CINDY”.

[10] Mr Lowen was subsequently asked to confirm that he accepted the Summary of Facts.
Despite numerous further communications with Mr Lowen, it was some time before he responded to this request.

[11] The matter has proceeded by way of an admitted breach and has been heard on the papers.

Agreed Summary of Facts

1. The Respondent in this matter, Peter Gregory Lowen is a licensed public trainer, under the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing (GRNZ).
2. He has held a trainer’s licence since August 2008 and trained out of Tokoroa based kennels. He currently has no registered racing dogs with GRNZ.
3. As of 8 June 2026, GRNZ records recorded the Respondent as the registered owner of two greyhounds ‘Retired as Pets’ –
• BIG TIME URBAN (Ear brand – ZKNIR, Microchip – 953010004148348)
• BIG TIME CINDY (Ear brand – ZLNRW, Microchip –956000012867940).

Rule

4. Rule LR22b (2) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing (in force from 1 February 2023) states that the owner of a greyhound: shall take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound and the owner shall provide to GRNZ the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed, in addition to complying with any applicable notification obligations under r 34(5)….
5.The purpose of this recordkeeping requirement is so GRNZ and/or the RIB can verify the placement and wellbeing of rehomed greyhounds and ensure that the greyhound has not been disposed of other than through being privately rehomed (for example, being euthanised).

Circumstances

6. During an RIB Kennel Audit conducted at the Respondent’s Tokoroa property on 17 November 2025, RIB staff inspected and scanned both greyhounds, BIG TIME CINDY and BIG TIME URBAN, confirming that both greyhounds were in the Respondent’s care at that time.
7. On 14 May 2026, the Respondent emailed GRNZ requesting that both BIG TIME CINDY and BIG TIME URBAN be deregistered and placed on the “Great Mates” rehoming list. The application did not qualify because the required vaccinations had expired.
8. On 18 May 2026, four days after requesting deregistration, the Respondent sent a text message to GRNZ stating: “Hey Michael my wife and I have decided to race Cindy to see the game out. Should have her shots sorted soon”.
9. On 22 May 2026, RIB Stewards advised the Respondent that a kennel traceability inspection would be undertaken at his property on 8 June 2026.
10. After several unsuccessful attempts to confirm arrangements, the Respondent contacted a RIB Steward immediately prior to the inspection and advised that BIG TIME CINDY was no longer at the property.
11. During the kennel inspection conducted on 8 June 2026, BIG TIME URBAN was physically accounted for. BIG TIME CINDY was not present. When questioned regarding the whereabouts of the greyhound, the Respondent advised that: the dog had left approximately three weeks earlier with a male and female friend; and he refused to identify those persons, stating he did not wish to breach their privacy.
12. The Respondent was reminded by RIB Stewards that BIG TIME CINDY remained registered in his name and that r 34 required notification to GRNZ within three business days of the greyhound leaving his care. He was directed to provide the location of the greyhound together with the identity and contact details of the person(s) caring for it.
13. On 9 June 2026, the Respondent, for the first time, identified Kyle Cumming as the person to whom he claimed to have gifted BIG TIME CINDY. He provided an address in Wairakei, Taupo but refused to provide a contact number for him.
14. On 24 June 2026, the Respondent declined to participate in a formal interview with RIB Investigators, instead providing a handwritten statement. In that statement he maintained that BIG TIME CINDY had been rehomed to Kyle Cumming on a trial basis commencing on 12 May 2026 and that Kyle later advised the greyhound had settled well and that he intended to permanently keep her. The Respondent also stated Kyle was travelling in the South Island and would contact him again in due course.
15. Subsequent enquiries undertaken by the RIB at the Wairakei address failed to locate Kyle Cumming. Enquiries with neighbouring properties resulted in investigators obtaining contact details for Wayne Cumming, Kyle’s father.
16. During a recorded interview on 25 June 2026, Wayne Cumming advised investigators that BIG TIME CINDY had in fact been gifted to Kyle approximately ten to fourteen months earlier, substantially earlier than claimed by the Respondent. He further stated the greyhound had broken a front leg after stepping into a rabbit hole, had been euthanised by him shortly afterwards and buried at another rural property.
17. Wayne Cumming’s account differed significantly from that of the Respondent regarding both the timing of the alleged rehoming and the subsequent whereabouts of BIG TIME CINDY.
18. Wayne Cummings provided a contact number for his son Kyle, with the Respondent also providing the same number via text message on 29 June 2026.
19. On 13 July 2026, RIB Investigators obtained a telephone statement from Kyle Cumming. Kyle advised that he uplifted BIG TIME CINDY from the Respondent during April 2026 after allegedly getting his contact details from the Greyhound Association.
20. Enquiries with GRNZ confirmed that neither Wayne Cumming nor Kyle Cumming has ever been registered as an approved greyhound rehomer.
21. Kyle Cumming stated that the arrangement was for a four-week trial period, after which the Respondent indicated he would complete the necessary paperwork if Kyle decided to permanently keep the greyhound. Kyle advised that no documentation was completed at the time because he was uncertain whether he would retain the dog.
22. Kyle stated that approximately four weeks later, the Respondent contacted him to ask whether he intended to keep BIG TIME CINDY. Kyle confirmed that he did and subsequently paid the Respondent $500 for the greyhound. Kyle also stated that he was unaware of any rehoming documentation ever being completed or lodged with GRNZ.
23. Kyle advised that BIG TIME CINDY remained at his father’s property for approximately one month before running down a hill and stepping into a rabbit hole, resulting in a broken leg. Kyle stated that his father subsequently euthanised the greyhound, which was then buried on his younger brother’s farm.
24. Kyle further advised that he had no knowledge of the Respondent’s communications with GRNZ or the RIB regarding BIG TIME CINDY and confirmed he had not recently been contacted by the Respondent.
25. Kyle’s account corroborates Wayne Cumming’s explanation as to the manner in which BIG TIME CINDY sustained the injury that resulted in her euthanasia. However, his evidence differs from the Respondent’s account regarding the timing of the rehoming and confirms that, despite the greyhound remaining in his care following the trial period, the Respondent failed to complete the required rehoming documentation or notify GRNZ in accordance with rr LR22B(2) and 34(5)(a).
26. Due to the Respondent’s failure to keep sufficient records to satisfy the requirements of both rr LR22B (2) and 34(5)(a):
• No prescribed forms or declarations were completed around the rehoming.
• No contact details or address were provided to GRNZ.
• No confirmation was obtained that the greyhounds were desexed, had dental work, or were registered with a council prior to rehoming.
27. As a result of these failings, the RIB has been unable to:
a) Verify that the dog was indeed privately rehomed.
b) Verify the circumstances surrounding the greyhound leaving the Respondent’s care.
c) Verify the welfare status and placement of the greyhound following its departure from the Respondent’s property.
d) Confirm the appropriateness of the rehoming arrangements.
e) Determine the accuracy of the reported death.
28. The Respondent’s Person Reports containing all previous judicial history is attached.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

[12] The Informant stated that the fact that this was a documentation and recordkeeping failure did not diminish its seriousness. This was particularly so in respect of the closure of the greyhound Industry. The requirement to provide full contact details was critical to ensuring the welfare of rehomed greyhounds, as it enabled GRNZ and the RIB to follow up and verify their wellbeing.

[13] As a result of Mr Lowen’s failure to provide the required information, the RIB was initially unable to verify that BIG TIME CINDY had been privately rehomed, the circumstances surrounding her leaving Mr Lowen’s care, her welfare status and placement, the appropriateness of the rehoming arrangements, or the accuracy of the reported death. These matters were only established following further RIB enquiries.

[14] The Informant referred to RIU v L (2019) where it was said:

“A common thread in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member…. The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between:
• the public interest
• the interests of the offending member
• the interests of the professional body as a whole
• the seriousness of the offending
• any aggravating and mitigating factors.”

[15] The penalty imposed must ensure the protection of the integrity and reputation of the Industry by sanctioning Mr Lowen’s conduct and deterring others from engaging in similar conduct.

[16] The charge involves a recordkeeping failure in respect of one retired greyhound. The failure and the information obtained was clearly insufficient to meet the requirements of GRNZ rr LR22B(2) and 34(5)(a), including providing the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed. Because of Mr Lowen’s failure, GRNZ and the RIB had been unable to verify that the dog was indeed privately rehomed as opposed to being euthanised.

[17] The purpose of the record keeping requirements is to ensure that adequate contact details of the new owner are available to enable GRNZ to verify the welfare of rehomed greyhounds.

[18] The current authorities indicate that a starting point of $1,000 for a documentation failure in respect of a single greyhound is appropriate. However, the circumstances of the present breach supported a fine at a higher level, to recognise the importance of maintaining the integrity of the required approach in light of the Industry’s closure.

[19] Recent comparable cases were identified.

[20] RIB v Cole 6 December 2024 — Mrs Cole admitted one representative charge pursuant to r 109.2. Mrs Cole failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing eight retired greyhounds, by failing to provide full identity and contact details of the new owners. Like the present case, Mrs Cole involved a failure to comply with documentation procedures under the Rules, and it was entirely uncertain as to what ultimately happened to the dogs in question.

[21] The Adjudicative Committee in Cole acknowledged the significance of the record keeping requirements under the GRNZ Rules and noted that these Rules are vital to ensure the welfare of rehomed greyhounds, maintaining Industry integrity and public confidence. The Committee adopted a starting point of a fine of $1,000 per dog, which resulted in a starting point of $8,000. The Committee reduced the starting point by 25% for mitigating factors. This resulted in a final fine of $6,000.

[22] RIB v O’Regan 26 January 2026 — Mr O’Regan admitted one representative charge pursuant to rr LR22B and 34(5)(a) concerning documentation and recordkeeping failures in respect of two retired greyhounds. The RIB sought a fine of $2,000, comprised of $1,000 per greyhound. This decision provided recent guidance under the same Rules and reinforced the importance of the recordkeeping requirements governing the rehoming of retired greyhounds. The penalty was a fine of $1,875.

[23] The submissions in O’Regan referred to RIB v Fredrickson 12 June 2023, where a $1,000 starting point was adopted for a documentation failure involving a single greyhound which was reduced to $750 for mitigating factors. Mr Fredrickson breached r 163(d) by forging his wife’s signature on the transfer of ownership form for the sale of a greyhound after they encountered difficulties finding a convenient time to meet and both complete the paperwork. Mr Fredrickson did so to speed up the sale process to enable the purchaser to race the greyhound at an upcoming race meeting. There was no evidence that Mr Fredrickson’s wife objected to the sale of the greyhound and there was no question of the safety of the animal once it had been sold.

[24] No uplift was sought for Mr Lowen’s previous judicial history.

[25] That Mr Lowen had admitted the breach, was taken into account in arriving at the overall penalty sought.

[26] Having regard to the circumstances of the breach, the welfare and traceability purpose of the Rules, and the comparable authorities, the RIB submitted that a fine of between $1,000 and $2,000 was appropriate.

Respondent’s Penalty Submission

[27] Mr Lowen’s submission was brief. He stated that he was in an unhealthy state of mind due to a personal tragedy (which is not described in the interests of Mr Lowen’s privacy) and by his trying to find a forever home for the dog quicker than the normal drawn out procedure. He believed that this was the right thing to do at the time. He apologised for his “ignorance of not knowing the proper procedure”. At the end of it all, he had lost everything including his passion “in a blink of an eye”. He was not in a position to pay a hefty fine, but accepted that in hindsight, he went the wrong way in dealing with this rehoming and was “truly sorry” for it.

Discussion

[28] Mr Lowen has failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound by failing to provide the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed with respect to BIG TIME CINDY [microchip – 956000012867940]. As a consequence, he has admitted a breach of r LR22B(2).

[29] This is a documentation failure. The purpose of rr LR22B(2) and 34(5)(a), however, is clear. With the closure of the Industry, the requirement to provide full contact details is critical to ensuring the welfare of rehomed greyhounds, as it enables GRNZ and the RIB to follow up and verify their wellbeing. In this context, there is a need to give weight when imposing penalty to deterrence and denunciation.

[30] In this case, the dog in question is said to be now deceased. However, as a result of Mr Lowen’s failure to provide the required information, the RIB has been unable to verify that the greyhound was in fact privately rehomed, as claimed, rather than euthanised.

[31] The time line is as follows.

[32] The kennel audit at Mr Lowen’s property on 17 November 2025, confirmed that BIG TIME CINDY was in Mr Lowen’s care at that time.

[33] On 14 May 2026, Mr Lowen emailed GRNZ requesting that BIG TIME CINDY and BIG TIME URBAN be deregistered and placed on the “Great Mates” rehoming list. The application did not qualify, because the required vaccinations had expired. Four days later, Mr Lowen advised GRNZ that he and his wife had decided to race BIG TIME CINDY and that he intended to have her vaccinations attended to.

[34] On 22 May 2026, RIB Stewards advised Mr Lowen that a kennel traceability inspection would be undertaken at his property on 8 June 2026. Immediately prior to that inspection, Mr Lowen advised that BIG TIME CINDY was no longer at the property.

[35] As of 8 June 2026, GRNZ records recorded Mr Lowen as the registered owner of two greyhounds “Retired as Pets”, including BIG TIME CINDY.

[36] During the inspection on 8 June, Mr Lowen stated that BIG TIME CINDY was travelling around the South Island on a bus, that she had left approximately three weeks earlier with a male and female friend, and he refused to identify these persons, stating he did not wish to breach their privacy. The next day, Mr Lowen identified Mr Kyle Cumming as the person to whom he had gifted BIG TIME CINDY.

[37] On 24 June 2026, Mr Lowen declined to participate in a formal interview with RIB Investigators and instead provided a handwritten statement in which he maintained that BIG TIME CINDY had been rehomed to Mr Cumming on a trial basis commencing on 12 May 2026 and that Mr Cumming was travelling in the South Island.

[38] On 13 July 2026, Mr Cumming advised the RIB that he uplifted BIG TIME CINDY from Mr Lowen during April 2026 on a four-week trial. He subsequently decided to keep her and paid Mr Lowen $500. Mr Cumming stated that he was unaware of any rehoming documentation ever being completed or lodged with GRNZ.

[39] Mr Cumming was not registered as an approved greyhound rehomer.

[40] As stated in the agreed summary, no prescribed forms or declarations were completed around the rehoming, no contact details or address were provided to GRNZ at the relevant time, and no confirmation was obtained that the greyhound was desexed, had dental work, or was registered with a council prior to rehoming. The RIB was unable to verify that BIG TIME CINDY had been privately rehomed, the circumstances surrounding her leaving Mr Lowen’s care, her welfare status and placement, the appropriateness of the rehoming arrangements, or the accuracy of the reported death. These matters were only addressed following further RIB enquiries.

[41] The Informant submits a starting point of a fine in the vicinity of $1,000 to $2,000 is appropriate, having regard to comparable cases.

[42] The present case is more serious than Fredrickson, which involved a failure to comply with documentation procedures under the Rules and where there was no question of the safety of the dog once it had been sold. The dishonesty element in that case is not present, however. Mr Lowen’s actions, or perhaps more correctly his omission, was more serious due to the inability, as in Cole and O’Regan, to ascertain with any certainty the reason for the demise of the greyhound. The starting point in Fredrickson was a $1,000 fine. After personal mitigating factors were considered, many of which mirror those of Mr Lowen, the penalty was $750.

[43] The facts in Cole are similar to the present case. There were discrepancies in the records of eight dogs as opposed to Mr Lowen’s one. Full addresses had not been provided for the rehomed dogs, only phone numbers which provided the same recorded messages when rung.

[44] The starting point of $1,000 per dog in Cole could be said to be low and is perhaps best viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances in that case, in that eight dogs were involved and thus the combined (global) starting point was $8,000.

[45] The Adjudicative Committee believes the matters identified by the Informant and, in particular the very important role that this Rule plays in the promotion of animal welfare, are relevant considerations and adopts a starting point of $1,250, which was the starting point (per dog) in O’Regan.

[46] The mitigating factor of admission of the breach is to be viewed with reference to the particular circumstances of the breach, in that the RIB has clearly established that Mr Lowen’s bookkeeping has fallen well short of good Industry practice.

[47] Mr Lowen appears before the Adjudicative Committee with a clear record, when race related breaches are put to one side.

[48] Mr Lowen requests that the Adjudicative Committee considers his personal circumstances and, in particular, those that pertained at the time of the breach and that he was endeavouring to do the right thing by the dog.

[49] A 40 per cent reduction from the $1,250 starting point is appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the breach, Mr Lowen’s apology for his actions, his record, his personal mitigating circumstances, and the financial impact of the penalty imposed.

[50] The fine is one of $750.

Costs

[51] The Informant has not sought costs and, as the matter was dealt with on the papers, there is no award.