Christchurch GRC 1 February 2024 (heard 26 February 2024 at Addington) – Raymond Casey

The Charge:

[1]  Information No.  A16927 alleges that, on 1 February 2024, at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway, Christchurch, the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 156(g)(ii) of the Rules of Racing of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated in that he wilfully abused and threatened GRNZ employee Jake Bell by swearing at him and threatening to punch him in the head.

[2]  The Information was served on the Respondent on 5 February 2024.

[3]  The hearing of the charge took place at Addington Raceway on 26 February 2024. Mr Casey was present at the hearing. The Charge and the Rule were read to him, and he confirmed that he understood the Charge and the Rule and that the Charge was admitted.

[4]  The Charge was found proved.

The Rule:

[5]  Rule 156 provides:

An offence is committed if a person (including an official):

(g) wilfully assaults, obstructs, impedes, abuses, interferes with, threatens or insults:

(i) GRNZ.

(ii) any officer, employee, or member of GRNZ.

(iii) a Club, or an officer, employee, or member of a Club.

(iv) the Racing Integrity Board or any other official.

(v) a committee or Sub-committee of GRNZ;

(vi) any officer, employee or member of an Adjudicative Committee, Appeals Tribunal of Racing Integrity Board, in or at any place, including at or in the vicinity of the place where an inquiry, other disciplinary process, hearing or appeal proceeding is to take place, is taking place or has taken place.

Facts:

[6]  Mr Irving presented the following Summary of Facts:

1.  The Respondent, Raymond Casey, is the holder of a Public Trainer’s Licence issued by New Zealand Greyhound Racing (GRNZ).
2.  He trains approximately 10 greyhounds from his property near Rangiora.
3.  On Thursday 1 February 2024, Mr Casey attended the Christchurch GRC evening meeting at Addington raceway.
4.  The complainant in this matter is Jake Bell, the National Track Curator employed by GRNZ.
5.  Prior to the trials starting, Mr Casey walked across from the kennel block and began inspecting the racetrack. He had not notified any of the track staff that he was on the racetrack was not wearing a ‘hi-vis’ vest. While there is no official club or NZTR policy regarding this, it is a general Health & Safety concern.
6.  Following the first qualifying trial Mr Casey continued inspecting the track around the turn by the 645m boxes.
7.  Another member of the track staff, spoke to Mr Casey and advised him that he can’t walk onto the track without wearing a hi-vis vest and that he had to get off.
8.  Mr Bell went to the Stewards room and reported the incident to Steward David Wadley. After leaving the room and while speaking on his phone, Mr Casey walked over to him and said, “you can come to the f…..g Stewards office” and continued by pointing up to the room and saying, “hurry the f..k up”.
9.  Mr Casey then went to the Steward’s room to also report the incident to the Stewards.
10.  A short time later Mr Bell entered the Stewards room where Mr Casey was speaking to Mr Wadley. Mr Wadley asked Mr Bell to leave the room to which Mr Bell replied that Mr Casey had asked him to come to the room.
11.  As Mr Bell was about to leave, Mr Casey got off his chair and confronted Mr Bell at the top of the stairs, standing right in front of him by the door, stating he was going to punch his head in and that he was “trying to be a f…..g hero” and that he “can’t tell him what to do”. Mr Casey continued that he was going to “punch your f…..g head in” and “knock your head off”.
12.  Mr Wadley intervened and stood in between the pair before Mr Bell left the room.
13.  A short time later Mr Bell was speaking to another Trainer on the track outside the kennel block when Mr Casey walked past saying that he has “every right to walk the track because it’s f….d” and he “wanted to know whether to scratch his dogs or not”.
14.  Mr Wadley again intervened, telling Mr Casey to stop and for the pair to go their separate ways.
15.  Later that evening Mr Casey was interviewed and advised of the charge by Mr Wadley.
16.  In explanation Mr Casey stated that a worker came and told him to get off the track approximately 20 minutes after he had been seen by Mr Bell and others walking out onto the track and that they could have brought him a hi-vis vest to wear. He admitted that his behaviour toward Mr Bell in the Stewards room was abusive.
17.  Mr Bell stated that he felt very threatened by Mr Casey’s behaviour and was shocked by what he said to him in front of Mr Wadley.
18.  Mr Casey has no previous NRI charges.

[7]  Mr Casey said he accepted the contents of the Summary of Facts as presented except for two facts. He said he trains 13 dogs not 10 and has 13 other Greyhounds on his property. Mr Casey said he has been in the Industry for 33 years not 18.

Penalty Submissions of the Informant:

[8]  Mr Irving presented the following written penalty submissions. These were taken as read by Mr Casey.

1.  The Respondent Raymond Casey has admitted a breach of Rule 156(g)(ii) of the Regulations of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated including the Rules of Racing (Rules) in that he did wilfully abuse and threaten GRNZ employee Jake Bell by swearing at him and threatening to punch him in the head at the CGRC meeting at Addington on 01 February 2024.
2.  The Respondent is a licensed public trainer under the Rules.
3.  Following a teleconference held on 19 February a Penalty Hearing was scheduled for 12.00pm on Monday 26 February, with respective Penalty Submission to be filed by the parties on Thursday 22 February.

Penalty Provisions

4.  The penalties which may be imposed are contained in Rule 174(1).

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 $10,000.00 for any one offence;

(c) suspension;

(d) disqualification;

(e) cancellation of a registration or a licence, or in the case of a Club, its affiliation to GRNZ; or

(f) warning off.

5.  The four key principles of sentencing in a racing context can be summarised briefly:

5.1.   Penalties are designed to punish the offender for their wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.

5.2  In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.

5.3  A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of behaviour in question.

5.4  The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

Public Interest

6.  The greyhound industry is under constant scrutiny by those who perceive there to be no place for the sport in society, to the point that the general public are now being influenced through the negative media interest. The threatening behaviour toward a GRNZ employee at a race meeting will further damage the integrity of the code. If these types of breaches are not upheld in the industry and when necessary, with condign sanctions, the industry cannot maintain a ‘social licence’ to continue to operate.

RIB’s position as to penalty

7.  When determining penalty, the RIB submit that the Committee have regard to the purpose of the proceedings which include: to ensure the rules are complied with; to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of officials and licence holders alike; and to protect the other participants in racing.

8.  The RIB submits the penalty in this case should be a three-month suspension.

9.  Comparable Cases

9.1  The most similar recent previous GR case is that of RIU v Steele (2020). Steele admitted a charge under the ‘old’ Rule 62.1(g) in that he threatened Steward Scott Wallis. Having been requested to attend the Stewards room by Mr Wallis, Steele repeatedly swore that he wouldn’t attend. As the pair walked together, Steele’s greyhound twice jumped up on Mr Wallis, who pushed the dog away. Steele reacted by extending his arm toward Mr Wallis in a threatening manner telling him not to touch his “f…..g greyhound” and that if he did so again, he would knock his f…..g block off and that would be the last thing he ever did.

In determining penalty, Steele expressed a preference for a suspension rather than a fine. His expression of remorse and willingness to rehabilitate were offset by his two prior recent behavioural charges. The resulting penalty was a six-month suspension – with the final two months to be remitted upon proof of completion of formalised counselling.

“The Committee believes that a term of suspension is a necessary penalty having regard to Mr Steele’s record and the severity of the offending involving, as it did, a threat of violence to Mr Wallis, Stipendiary Steward.” [Decision attached]

9.2  RIU v Goode (2017) also involved a charge under the ‘old’ Rule 88.1(g) in that he abused and threatened a Steward. In this case, a heated dispute between Goode and a Steward during a race meeting, resulting in Goode raising his fists toward the Steward’s face stating, “you are lucky I don’t whack you now”, in addition to using abusive and foul language. This was Goode’s first offence, which he defended, and he received a four-month suspension of his greyhound trainer’s licence. The matter was part of a greater incident which involved additional charges. [Decision attached – relevant paragraphs 38 & 40]

9.3  Previous greyhound cases of abusing an official, all from 2021, have commanded fines, however these have not involved threats of assault. (Weir – $1120; Grant – $1200; Scott – $850)

Aggravating Factors

10.  GRNZ records detail that the Respondent first held a licence in 2008 and therefore he must know the importance of conducting himself in a professional manner to maintain for the integrity of racing. There is expectation that all licence holders behave properly, as a condition of their licence being granted.

11.  Mr Bell was acting within his compass as the GRNZ employed National Track Manager and in a health and safety role, when reporting the Respondent to the Chairman of Stewards for not complying with basic track health and safety requirements. He has a duty to ensure persons on racetracks he is overseeing, are safe. He should not be challenged for insisting on compliance and should not be subjected to threats of physical violence, especially when the person making the threat is standing right in front of him.

Mitigating Factors

12.  The Respondent has no previous behaviour related or any other NRI charges in his 15 plus years in the industry.

13. He has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity and has been fully cooperative throughout the process.

Costs

14.  No costs are sought.

Conclusion

15.  Given the circumstances of the case and the aggravating and mitigating factors, the RIB submits the penalty in this case should be a 3-month suspension.

[9]  Penalty Submissions of the Respondent:

The following is my submission in response to the Penalty Submissions issued by the RIB in regard to an incident between myself and GRNZ National track curator Jake Bell on 01/02/2024.

Before I start my submission, I would like to clear up a few discrepancies about how long I have held a licence as well as the type of licence I hold and how many dogs are in my care. I first got my training licence back in 1991 which makes me a licence holder for approximately 33 years not the 15 years stated in the penalty submission. I also only have an owner trainers’ licence not a public licence which was also stated, I do not receive training fees and I rely on prize money. I also have 26 greyhounds on my property, not just 10.

On 01/02/2024 I was inspecting the track as I have done many times before to ensure that I felt comfortable racing my dogs on the track prepared that day. Due to past allegations of falsifying of track readings I feel it is in every trainers right and best interest to walk the  raceway and was not approached about any issue until I made my way over towards the 645m  and inspect to see if they personally feel comfortable sending their dogs around especially when taking into consideration the countless hours and money we spend preparing and caring for our dogs, the least we can expect is a safe track.

I was first spotted by Bell and other track curators whilst I was in the stir up area of Addington raceway and was not approached about any issue until I made my way over towards the 645m boxes where Bob Cairns approached me about getting off the track, nowhere in that interaction did Bob inform me about having to where a Hi Vis as I have not had to in the past. Both Bell and other track staff had the opportunity to inform me about the Hi Vis while I was over at the stir up area where they first spotted me, but they did not. I also made sure to stay off the sand and only walked on the grass area when inspecting the track and did not affect any qualifying trials or track curators doing their job. David Wadley even informed me whilst reviewing the tapes that you could not see me on them, this is how far off the track I was.

It is stated in the Penalty Submissions the industry is in the eye of the public, more so now than ever with the work of activist watching every race, every injury and every collision that may be endured on the track. Track safety is paramount as this is one of the leading causes of injuries and my inspection is only to ensure safety of greyhounds running on the track and ensuring I’m comfortable sending my greyhounds around. A post submitted on the LP Facebook page by Elizabeth Whelan informing trainers that the RTR venues across the country are running at or nearing full capacity and as a trainer this is worrying to hear and makes me more careful with track conditions especially after the alleged falsified readings were an issue prior to this date.

I personally feel the 3-month suspension isn’t necessary and I am in a position to pay a fine. In the Penalty Submissions an example is given of RIU vs Steele it states Steele expressed a preference for a suspension over a fine which is alongside 2 previous behavioural charges, I do not have any. The 2 examples given in that submission is abusive behaviour towards Stewards not a GRNZ track curator. I also have 26 dogs on my property that will need places to go during my suspension and rehoming as well as RTR facilities are at or near capacity and with the welfare of these dogs in mind, where would they go.

While I admit to swearing towards Jake Bell this comes with general conversations held by Bell as swearing is a part of his conversations with us. Bell becomes quite hostile towards trainers and handlers especially when concerns about the track are bought to his attention.

In summary, I feel my actions when inspecting the Addington Raceway track on 01/02/2024 were appropriate as I was not a distraction to track curators doing their jobs or a distraction to dogs competing in a qualifying trial. This is something me as well as many LP’s have done countless times before. Jake Bell had the opportunity to inform me that they wanted me to wear a Hi Vis prior to carrying out my track inspection as they first spotted me in the stir up area of the track. Regarding wearing a Hi Vis as stated in the summary of facts this is not a club or NZTR policy but a health and safety concern which I was unaware of and had I been made aware of I would have complied as my clean record over almost 33 years training attest. This would have prevented the incident which followed. Taking into consideration the alleged dishonesty by track curators in the past by falsifying track readings I feel it is my responsibility as a trainer to ensure my dogs do not become a statistic or end up being plastered on Anti Racing groups online as this isn’t a good look in the public eye. My dog’s safety and wellbeing will always come first. I admit my actions towards Jake Bell were not appropriate but behaviour towards licenced people has been less than appropriate in the past.

My main concern with my suspension comes down to the welfare of my dogs and where they will be housed during my suspension. I have gathered character references please find them as part of my submission.

[10]  Mr Casey presented 3 character references from various industry participants.

Reasons for Penalty:

[11]   In determining an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has regard to the usual principles of sentencing. Penalties are designed to punish the offender for their wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment. In a racing context, it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences. A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of behaviour in question. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

[12]  Mr Irving, in summary, said he had some sympathy for Mr Casey in respect of Trainers wanting to inspect the track pre racing. He said there are no official guidelines, policy or protocol which would clarify when and how Trainers could access the track for inspection.

[13]  Mr Irving, in response to Mr Casey’s assertion that his abuse was less serious than the comparable mentioned cases because it involved a track curator not a Steward, read the Rule to the hearing.

Rule 156:

(g) wilfully assaults, obstructs, impedes, abuses, interferes with, threatens or insults:

(i) GRNZ;

(ii) any officer, employee or member of GRNZ;

(iii) a Club, or an officer, employee or member of a Club;

(iv) the Racing Integrity Board or any other official;

(v) a committee or Sub-committee of GRNZ;

Mr Irving said there is no distinction between these persons.

[14]  Mr Casey has had a long career in the Greyhound Industry, both as a Trainer and as an Administrator and has within the last year, formed a rehoming kennel. He is obviously a very passionate and dedicated participant and derives his income from the sport.

[15]   Mr Casey has a clear record over his 30 plus years as a Licenced Person and his indiscretion appears to be somewhat capricious. He acknowledges his behaviour was unacceptable and impressed as being remorseful.

[16]  The Adjudicative Committee in considering the relevant precedents, concluded that both Steele (2020) and Goode (2017) had additional aggravating factors not present in Mr Casey’s case.

Mr Steele asked for a suspension rather than being fined and had two prior and recent behavioural charges against him.

Mr Goode defended his breach, which he is entitled to do, but also had additional charges against him upheld.

[17]   The Adjudicative Committee believes that in the circumstances of this case, a term of suspension would not be an apposite sanction. However, it is of the opinion this type of behaviour has surfaced far too frequently and that employees, officials and the like should be able to perform their tasks without abuse and/or the threat of violence.

Penalty:

[18]  Accordingly, a suspended suspension of 2 months (effective from the date of this Decision – 29 February 2024) is to be imposed upon Mr Casey, that if a further breach of this Rule occurs within the next 12 months, this suspension will be added to the presiding Adjudicative Committee’s penalty.

[19]  In addition to this suspended sentence, Mr Casey is fined the sum of $2,500.

Costs:

[20]  The matter was heard on a Raceday and the Adjudicative Committee is not seeking an order for costs.