Non Raceday Inquiry – Costs Decision dated 20 April 2023 – Lisa Waretini

DECISION OF ADJUDICATIVE COMMITTEE AS TO COSTS

[1] In a written penalty decision dated 23 February 2023, the Adjudicative Committee called for submissions in writing from the parties in relation to costs.

[2] Those submissions have now been received.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT

[3] (i) The Adjudicative Committee released its penalty decision in respect of Lisa Waretini on 23 February 2023. Ms Waretini has been disqualified for 15 months commencing 11 March 2023.

(ii) As requested, this Memorandum is provided to the Adjudicative Committee to address the issue of costs.

(iii) Ms Waretini was charged alongside her daughter, Alysha Waretini. The RIB acknowledges that, in the interests of fairness, the costs incurred by the RIB up until the point at which Ms Waretini accepted the Information and Alysha Waretini elected to proceed to a defended hearing, ought to be split equally between the Respondents.

(iv) At this point of the proceedings, the total costs incurred by the RIB amounted to $8,222.40. Between two, this amounts to $4,111.20 each.

(v) The RIB incurred a further $2,262.00 in costs through the penalty phase of the proceeding against Ms Waretini.

(vi) Therefore, the RIB has incurred $6,373.20 in total costs in respect of the proceeding against Ms Waretini. That sum includes time spent by Counsel on:

(a) preparation and attendance at seven teleconferences;
(b) preparing and filing Memorandum in relation to testing of ‘B’ sample;
(c) preparing penalty submissions and appearing at the penalty hearing.

(vii) It has previously been standard practice for the Adjudicative Committee to award 60 per cent of external costs. The RIB accepts that it is appropriate in this case for that practice to be followed.

(viii) Accordingly, the RIB seeks 60 per cent of its total costs from Ms Waretini, being $3,823.92.

(ix) The RIB anticipates the usual Adjudicative Committee costs will also be ordered.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

[4] (i) Lisa Waretini does not have Kiwisaver, own shares or own any other similar assets.

(ii) Currently there is an amount in her savings account. She owns a relocatable “granny flat” which is on the land that she has operated the kennels from, but the land is not owned by her.

(iii) Lisa Waretini faces an uncertain future financially, without any income guaranteed going forward.

(iv) Counsel, therefore, while acknowledging the principle that a contribution to costs should follow the result, would ask that any imposition of costs against Lisa Waretini be set at the minimum, having entered an admission of the charge at the earliest opportunity, with a precarious financial situation to be faced.

REASONS FOR COSTS

[5] The Applicant has claimed an amount of $4,111.20 for one-half of its costs incurred “up until the point at which [the Respondent] accepted the Information and Alysha Waretini elected to proceed to a defended hearing”. It was submitted that this was “in the interests of fairness”.

[6] In assessing costs to be awarded against the Respondent, it is necessary to consider the steps in the proceedings up until that point.

[7] The first teleconference was held on 28 June 2022 at which Counsel for the Respondent, Mr McCall, indicated that he had received instructions from the Respondent only very recently and, quite reasonably, he requested time to seek detailed instructions. This was granted by the Adjudicative Committee.

[8] The next teleconference took place on 13 July 2022. Mr McCall then advised that the Respondent admitted the charge, and this was formally recorded. At the time of that teleconference, it had been indicated that the Handler, Alysha Waretini, wished to have the “B” sample analysed and also to obtain a data pack in respect of the swab for Methamphetamine taken from the motor vehicle. Mr McCall requested that, prior to a date being set for a penalty hearing, he be permitted to await the outcome of those procedures. He submitted that the Respondent’s position could be prejudiced if the hearing of the charge against her proceeded without the outcome of those procedures being available. Counsel for the Applicant had no objection to that, and the Adjudicative Committee so ordered.

[9] Counsel for Alysha Waretini subsequently advised that her client no longer required the “B” sample to be analysed. In a Minute of the Adjudicative Committee dated 25 November 2022, the charge against the Respondent and the charge against Alysha Waretini were set down for hearing on 1 February 2023.

[10] The Applicant seeks further costs from the Respondent of $2,262.00 incurred “through the penalty phase of the proceedings against the Respondent”. The “interests of fairness” require, the Adjudicative Committee believes, that only a contribution to those costs should be paid by the Respondent.

[11] The Respondent maintained her guilty plea throughout. She had admitted the breach at the first reasonable opportunity.

[12] The major part of the costs incurred by the Applicant related to the proceeding against Alysha Waretini. An award of costs has already been made against Alysha Waretini.

[13] No detailed information was provided as to how the figure of $2,262.00 was arrived at, but it would appear to be reasonable. The Applicant seeks 60% of that amount, or $1,357.20.

[14] It is ordered that the Respondent pay to the Applicant the following sums by way of a contribution to costs:

RIB legal costs (based on 60% of the amount claimed): $1,350.00
Contribution to costs of Adjudicative Committee: $500.00
Total: $1,850.00

[15] The Respondent is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $1,850.00.