Appeal – Written Reserved Decision dated 27 August 2026 – Barry Coxhead

Background

1. The Appellant was the owner and the accountable person for three registered thoroughbred mares being:

– 11 year old ROWENA DANCER
– 17 year old TEXAS YELLOW ROSE
– 6 year old MOLASSES

2. On 10 March 2026, a New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Stipendiary Steward Mrs Lauren Selvakumaran attended the Appellant’s property in Hawera and also the Hawera Racecourse where the Appellant housed two other horses, both of which appeared to be in overall good condition.

3. The three mares being ROWENA DANCER, TEXAS YELLOW ROSE and MOLASSES were, in Mrs Selvakumaran’s opinion, in poor bodily condition.

4. As a result, she arranged for a veterinary inspection to take place for all three mares.

5. The mares were removed from the Appellant’s property due to concerns over their physical condition. ROWENA DANCER and TEXAS YELLOW ROSE were euthanised.

6. As a result, the Appellant was charged under Rule 1402 of the NZTR Rules in respect of each mare. The Rule provides:

(1) “1402(1) each person to whom this Rule applies in respect of a horse must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical health and behavioural needs of the horse are met in a manner that is accordance with both:

a) Good practice: and
b) Scientific knowledge.

(2) Without limiting subrule (1) of this Rule each person to whom this Rule applies in respective horse must ensure that the horse receives as is reasonably practicable husbandry or treatment that elevates any deficiencies in nutrition or provisions or unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the horse”.

7. There were three charges. One charge in respect of each mare.

8. Following a defended hearing, an Adjudicative Committee issued a Written Reserved Decision dated 17 June 2026, finding the Appellant guilty in respect of all three charges. The Reserved Decision was comprehensive and it was a senior Adjudicative Committee.

9. After receiving submissions,the Adjudicative Committee issued a Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 9 July 2026. The Adjudicative Committee disqualified the Appellant for a period of 10 years in respect of the charge relating to ROWENA DANCER, 8 years and 6 months on the charge relating to TEXAS YELLOW ROSE and three years in respect of the charge relating to MOLASSES.

10. In addition, the Adjudicative Committee ordered the Appellant to pay the sum of $5,738.06 in costs.

11. The Appellant appeals both the finding of guilt in respect of all three Information’s and also the penalties imposed by the Adjudicative Committee.

Appellant’s Submissions

1. The Appellant filed written submissions and together with the support of his sister, who attended the hearing, gave further verbal submissions.

2. The Appellant denies any malnutrition. He was of the view, the blood tests which were taken from all three mares showed other issues, but not malnutrition. He particularly referred to ongoing lack of selenium. He maintained all three mares were properly fed by him.

3. The Appellant takes issue with the NZTR Welfare Standards and particularly the rating scale. He was of the view, two of the mares came within the range of 2-4 on the rating scale and therefore they should not have been uplifted.

4. He acknowledged the mares were not in good condition, but further denied they were in a condition to warrant being uplifted by NZTR. He did however, acknowledge TEXAS YELLOW ROSE was “dying” and he had neglected foot care.

5. He further confirmed he had made contact with the local Huntsman in early January 2026, to arrange for them to be picked up by the Huntsman, but further acknowledged he had not followed up when this had not occurred. He was of the view, he had “booked” ROWENA DANCER and TEXAS YELLOW ROSE to be uplifted by the Huntsman and therefore, he had not given them the attention they might otherwise have deserved.

6. He went on to further submit the Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides a defence for any prosecution. Section 13(2)(b) states:

“that the act or omission constituting the offence took place in circumstances of stress or emergency, and was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life”

7. The Appellant argued this Act must take priority and override the Rules of NZTR and given the level of stress he had been suffering due to personal circumstances then, he provided a full defence to the charge under NZTR Rules.

8. Based on all of these considerations – most of which had already been presented to the Adjudicative Committee – he was of the view that he should have been found not guilty of all three Information’s and the charges dismissed.

Respondent’s Submission

1. Mr Irving on behalf of the Respondent, acknowledged the two horses stabled at the Hawera Racecourse were in good condition. Therefore, he maintains no argument relating to the Appellant’s stress could be sustained, given two of the horses he owned were in good condition, but others which he had on his own property, had been neglected.

2. Mr Irving referred us to the transcript of evidence given by Dr Loh, who confirmed the horses were suffering from malnutrition and it was simply incorrect to say the blood test stated otherwise.

3. The selenium deficiency had been diagnosed in April 2024 and there had been ample time to rectify this deficiency prior to January 2026.

4. He referenced the Pathologist’s Report, which together with the veterinary inspections, confirmed laminitis and other serious conditions, which warranted the actions which were subsequently taken.

5. Mr Irving also emphasised that the defence of “stress” was not included in the NZTR Rules.

6. The Respondent accordingly, sought for the Appeal in this regard to be dismissed.

Appellant’s Submissions as to Penalty

1. It was difficult to ascertain what penalty the Appellant sought and after some discussion with the Tribunal, he conceded that he should have received a disqualification of two years “to enable him to turn his life around”.

Respondent’s Submissions as to Penalty

1. Mr Irving referenced a number of recent cases and submitted the 10 year disqualification was not manifestly excessive.

2. He noted the number of welfare cases prosecuted since 2023, have all emphasised the increasing importance based on animal welfare by all regulatory parties and the industry.

3. He particularly noted the comments by the Appeals Tribunal in Pertab v RIB (2024) where the Tribunal noted:

“Strong welfare standards are now widely accepted as essential for all racing codes and that any actions compromising those standards must be met with a firm response. Public attitudes towards animal welfare continue to harden and this shift will be reflected in the penalties imposed when standards are not maintained”

4. He further went on to state welfare breaches affect more than just the immediate parties involved – they impact public trust, the integrity of the wider profession, the industry’s ability to operate with confidence.

5. Therefore, it was submitted the Appeal against penalty should be dismissed.

Discussion

1. The Appeal was conducted under the provisions of Rule 1005(3). The Appeal is to be heard by way of a rehearing. It is for this Tribunal to determine whether the finding of guilt on all three Information’s and the penalties imposed were appropriate, based on the evidence and submissions which were made to the Adjudicative Committee.

2. The Tribunal has carefully considered the transcript of evidence, the Written Reserved Decision as to the finding of guilt, the Written Reserved Decision as to Penalty, the Appellant’s submissions, the Respondent’s submissions and we have also listened to the oral submissions.

3. Having done so, this Tribunal must then make its own decision.

4. It was necessary for the Tribunal to explain the nature of a rehearing to the Appellant. He appeared to be of the view, this Appeal was simply a second opportunity to place the original evidence before a decision making body.

5. The Appellant simply maintained the stance which was taken before the Adjudicative Committee, to the effect he had done nothing wrong.

6. The view of the Appellant in relation to the condition of all three mares, was totally contrary to the professional opinion of two Veterinary Surgeons and an Equine Pathologist. The Appellant remains in denial of the poor condition of all of the three horses.

7. We have further reviewed the Decision of the Adjudicative Committee and we cannot find any fault with any of the reasoning or ultimate decision.

8. In relation to penalty, the Appellant takes what we consider to be a totally unrealistic position. The circumstances determine a strong stance was needed to be taken. Again, we are unable to find any fault with the reasoning or application of precedent cases by the Adjudicative Committee in its Written Reserved Penalty Decision.

Decision

1. Both Appeals are dismissed. A stay of disqualification had been granted, pending the hearing of this Appeal. Therefore, all three disqualifications which are to be served concurrently, will now commence on the date of this Decision. The actual penalties imposed are referenced in paragraph 9 of the background to this Decision.

Costs

1. Costs are reserved. The Respondent, being the successful party to this Appeal, will have 7 days from the date of this Decision, to file a written memorandum as to costs. The Appellant will then have a further 7 days to respond. Any submissions made in this regard, must relate solely to costs and no other matters.