Non Raceday Inquiry – Reserved Penalty Decision dated 17 February 2023 – Jessica Jane Neale

The Charges

[1] Information No. A15829 alleges that between the 2nd of July 2022 and the 2nd of August 2022 at 317 Gillams Gully Road, Awatuna, West Coast, the Respondent, being an accountable person, failed to comply with the NZTR Welfare Standards (“the Welfare Code”) by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical health needs of the weanling (Gallant Guru – Guipure) by not providing adequate nutrition and veterinarian intervention, resulting in the horse’s condition deteriorating to such a state that it was seized by the SPCA and subsequently euthanised.

[2] Information No. A15830 alleges that the Respondent failed to comply with the NZTR Welfare Code by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical health needs of five thoroughbred horses in her care by not providing adequate nutrition resulting in all the horses’ conditions deteriorating to such a state that they were seized by the SPCA.

The Rules

[3] Rule 1402 of the NZTR Rules of Racing provides as follows:

(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 in accordance with both: (a) good practice; and (b) scientific knowledge.

(2) Without limiting sub-Rule (1) of this Rule, each person to whom this Rule applies in respect of a horse must ensure that the horse receives, as soon as is reasonably practicable, husbandry or treatment that alleviates any deficiencies in nutrition or provisions or unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the horse.

The Plea

[4] The Respondent has advised by email that both charges are admitted by her and, further, that she did not intend to attend the hearing of the charges.

[5] Rule 914 provides:

A defendant who does not appear at the hearing of the information may admit the breach of these Rules alleged in that information by giving written notice to the Adjudicative Committee that he does so and in such event the Adjudicative Committee shall have the same power to deal with him as if he had appeared before it and admitted that breach.

[6] The Respondent has admitted the breaches of the Rules and the Adjudicative Committee finds the charges proved.

Summary of Facts

[7] Mrs Williams presented the following written Summary of Facts:

(1) The Respondent, Jessica Jane Neale, is licensed as a Class C Trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). She has been a licensed thoroughbred trainer since August 2020.

(2) Mrs Neale is 33 years old and resides near Moana on the West Coast.

(3) Mrs Neale had six thoroughbred horses stabled at the Omoto Racecourse and in June 2022 was requested to remove the horses by the Greymouth Jockey Club as none of the horses were “in work”.

(4) The horses are owned by Mrs Neale and her husband Shane Neale:

COUNTRY CHEDDAR – 5-y-o mare; one race on 03 January 2022
GUIPURE – 13-y-o mare
WHY ME – 10-y-o gelding – retired
UNNAMED -7-y-o mare (Roc De Cambes – Darda)
UNNAMED – 3-y-o filly (Niagara – Guipure)
UNNAMED – 7-month-old gelding (Gallant Guru – Guipure); unbranded, not microchipped

(5) Mrs Neale leased a block of land at 317 Gillams Gully Road, Awatuna (near Hokitika), and the six horses were moved there on 2 July 2022. Mrs Neale resides an hour’s drive from the property.

(6) Philippa Beaumont was initially employed by Mrs Neale for two hours a day to feed and muck out while the horses were boxed at Omoto Racecourse, but was only paid up until June. Ms Beaumont also resides an hour’s drive from the Gillams Gully Road property.

(7) There was no formal arrangement or agreement between Mrs Neale and Ms Beaumont for the latter to feed, care for, or monitor the horses at the Gillams Gully Road property.

(8) There are several text messages with photographs between the pair that show a general ambivalence regarding the horses’ welfare.

(9) Mr Neale checked the horses on 8 July and led them across a small stream, so they could access more of the property.

(10) Ms Beaumont checked the horses on 15 July and allowed them access to more ground and took photographs of them.

(11) On 20 July Mr Neale checked the horses.

(12) On 26 July, a neighbour viewed the horses and, concerned about their condition, contacted the SPCA and emailed Mrs Neale, detailing those concerns.

(13) Ms Beaumont visited the horses on 27 July sending photos through to Mrs Neale showing the horses’ swollen legs. Mrs Neale responded, blaming the weather and dehydration for the horses’ condition.

(14) On 29 July, another neighbour heard what was thought to be a distressed horse and went to check on them. Upon inspecting the horses, the neighbour was so concerned about their condition that they rang the SPCA.

(15) Mrs Neale advised that she visited the horses on or about the 30 July. This was the first time she had inspected the horses since they had been moved to Gillams Gully Road four weeks earlier.

(16) Concerned at the lack of feed available, one of the neighbours offered Mrs Neale the use of her paddocks across the road and the horses were moved to this property on 31 July.

(17) On 03 August, SPCA Inspectors and a vet visited the property, inspected the horses and, due to their poor condition, seized all six pursuant to Section 129 of the Animal Welfare Act.

(18) The vet reported body condition scores ranging from 0.75/5 to 1.5/5 with all having excessive rain scald lesions.

(19) An inspection of the Gillams Gully Road property revealed a complete absence of any forage of nutritional value to the horses. The property was totally unsuitable for six thoroughbreds in winter and comprised mainly gorse, scrub and native bush. There were no areas of pasture and any small areas with grass were of little or no nutritional value. The land was wet and muddy with an unfenced stream and pond and numerous drainage ditches covered in scrub.

(20) The 7-month-old gelding had a significant penis injury, at least a week old, with the damage preventing it from retracting. The vet treated the injury and provided pain relief.

(21) The following day, the vet reassessed the gelding’s injury and, with no improvement and the horse in obvious pain, the decision was made to euthanise. The vet report stated: “Had there been adequate supervision of the animals, the injury (to the gelding) would have been noticed earlier and the chance of successful treatment would have been greater. (The gelding) should have received veterinary treatment as soon as possible.”

(22) A post-mortem examination also noted that the lack of abdominal fat mirrored the external signs of poor body condition and suggested a period of malnutrition of greater than one month.

(23) The remaining five horses were transported to Christchurch where they underwent treatment to assist in returning them to good health. They were all treated for malnutrition, rain scald and severe lice infestation.

(24) Rain scald is an infection of the skin caused by bacteria, normally dormant in the skin, activated when the skin is compromised, usually when wet or moist for prolonged periods.

Relevant guidance

(25) Section 4 of The Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides the definition of physical, health and behavioural needs of an animal:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term physical, health, and behavioural needs, in relation to an animal, includes—
(a) proper and sufficient food:
(ab) proper and sufficient water:
(b) adequate shelter:
(c) opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour:
(d) physical handling in a manner which minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress:
(e) protection from, and rapid diagnosis of, any significant injury or disease— being a need which, in each case, is appropriate to the species, environment, and circumstances of the animal.

(26) NZTR has also published guidelines for the welfare of thoroughbred horses which provide a framework of clear expectations for the care of horses before, during and after racing, and set out minimum standards for compliance with the Rules. These guidelines are freely available on NZTR’s website and include minimum standards for nutrition, husbandry and health, including that various conditions or diseases are well managed and that body condition is appropriate. The standards set out in those guidelines were not met in this case.

(27) Mrs Neale should be familiar with the welfare needs of horses due to the length of time she purports to have both been involved working with horses within the Thoroughbred Industry.

Respondent’s statement

(28) Mrs Neale was interviewed by the RIB on 31 August. She advised that she started riding trackwork when she was 15 years old and has been involved with thoroughbred horses from a very young age.

(29) Mrs Neale stated that she had treated the horses for lice three times, with the last treatment two days before they were removed from the Omoto Racecourse.

(30) She advised that feed had been left in the float at the Gillams Gully Road property and that she believed Ms Beaumont was still going to the feed supplier once a week and using her EFTPOS card to pay for feed and petrol.

(31) Mrs Neale also advised that her horses had shelter from the wind with the native trees but “they’ve gone from being boxed to the elements and they’re thoroughbreds,” and they had a month’s worth of rain in three days during that time.

(32) She stated “I didn’t do as thorough a check of them as I should have” after admitting that she had not seen the injury to the gelding’s penis.

(33) Mrs Neale advised she spoke to a vet on the phone on one occasion, concerned about the swollen legs but did not once request a vet to attend the horses.

Respondents’ record

(34) Mrs Neale has no previous Serious Racing Offence charges.

Applicant’s Penalty Submissions

[8] The Applicant submitted the following Penalty Submissions which may be summarised as follows:

(1) The importance of animal welfare to the image of racing and to that of the general public must be considered in this case.

(2) There is an increasing importance placed on animal welfare, and this has been recognised in previous cases – RIB v A (2021) and RIB v G (2019).

(3) The health and wellbeing of thoroughbred horses is of the utmost importance to NZTR and crucial to the future of horse racing. The social licence of the Industry is constantly under challenge.

(4) The penalty in this case should be a minimum 10-year disqualification on Charge 1 and a 5-year disqualification on Charge 2.

(5) The sole mitigating factor is that the Respondent admitted the charges shortly after service on her of the Informations.

Aggravating Factors

(6) The Respondent should be familiar with the welfare needs of horses due to the length of time she has been involved in the industry.

(7) The 7-month-old gelding was euthanised after having been assessed by a veterinarian over a 2-day period. The death of an animal through neglect is the ultimate breach of trust. The post-mortem suggested a period of malnutrition of more than one month, indicative of the poor body condition of all six horses.

(8) The RIB investigation revealed evidence of real complacency shown by the Respondent in the care and welfare of six horses, ignorant of the nutritional requirements of thoroughbred horses when turned out in winter, especially in harsh environments like the West Coast.

(9) The Respondent has attempted to delegate her duty of care and her own inaction by continuing to blame Ms Beaumont for not assisting with the horse management, despite her not being paid or having a formal agreement to do so.

Conclusion

(10) The offending in this case is significantly more serious than two previous Greyhound cases. It involves neglect of six thoroughbreds, with one suffering to the point that euthanasia was the only option.

(11) It is paramount to the integrity of the sport that the Welfare Code is strictly adhered to. Offending such as this absolutely undermines the public perception of the sport and is totally incongruous with the vales of NZTR and those involved in thoroughbred racing.

(12) Any penalty must not only demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending but also act as a deterrent to others. The reputation of the industry relies on members following the Rules, and breaches such as this undermine public trust and confidence, and bring the industry into disrepute.

(13) The RIB submits that a minimum 10-year disqualification for Charge 1 and 5-year disqualification for Charge 2 should be imposed to reflect the seriousness of the welfare breaches.

Position of the Respondent

[9] The Respondent advised by an email to the office of the RIB on 26 October 2022 that she would not be attending any hearing of the charges. She added that there was nothing she could say. She said that she had done the best she could “under shitty conditions with limited time and options”.

[10] In a further email on the same date, the Respondent said, “this has destroyed my life in more ways than just racing” and that she had lost her career.

[11] In an email dated 6 December 2022, the Respondent outlined, in some detail, <REDACTED> and the circumstances that led to these breaches. She told of <REDACTED> and of working two full-time jobs, leading her to rely on another person to tend to her horses. She accepted that it was her responsibility to ensure her horses were cared for in her absence, and that she had failed them. She said she has to live with this, and it will haunt her for the rest of her life. Finally, she said, she would accept a “lifetime ban” from racing.

[12] Racing Industry Chaplain, Andrew McKerrow, after unsuccessfully attempting to contact the Respondent on several occasions, was eventually able to speak with the Respondent on 6 February 2023. <REDACTED>.  Importantly, she confirmed that she did not wish to participate in any way in the matter of the charges against her.

Reasons for Penalty

[13] The relevant Rules are set out in paragraph [2] above. The Respondent is quite clearly in breach of those Rules. The Summary of Facts, which is not in dispute, sets out in quite harrowing detail the neglect that the horses were subjected to. As breaches of animal welfare cases go, this is a serious case and the penalty must reflect this. The Respondent, it seems, is quite indifferent as to the outcome of these charges against her. This is clear from her not wishing to make any form of response to the charges, despite being given every opportunity to do so. We will refer to this again later in these reasons.

[14] In early communications with the Respondent, she did not appear to show any remorse, just wishing the charges to be dealt with. In her email dated 6 December [see para 10], she does, to her credit, finally express some remorse. That she is indifferent to the outcome of these charges is shown by her statement – “I accept a lifetime ban from racing”.

[15] It is clear from the Summary of Facts that the Respondent has failed to provide any of the requirements of Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999

4. Definition of physical, health, and behavioural needs
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term physical, health, and behavioural needs, in relation to an animal, includes—
(a) proper and sufficient food
(ab) proper and sufficient water:
(b) adequate shelter:
(c) opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour:
(d) physical handling in a manner which minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress:
(e) protection from, and rapid diagnosis of, any significant injury or disease,—
being a need which, in each case, is appropriate to the species, environment, and circumstances of the animal.

[16] It is generally accepted that the five basic legal requirements for keeping horses are as follows:

• a suitable environment to live in;
• a healthy diet (including fresh clean water);
• the ability to behave normally;
• appropriate company; and
• protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

[17] The Respondent’s offending involved six thoroughbred horses. The horses had been stabled at the Omoto Racecourse prior to being shifted to a block of land at Gillams Gully Road, near Hokitika, in early July 2022. The Respondent lived an hour’s drive from that property.

[18] The Respondent had employed someone, Philippa Beaumont, for two hours a day while the horses were at Omoto but that arrangement ceased after the horses were moved to Gillams Gully. On 8 July 2022, the Respondent’s husband checked the horses and led them across a small stream to another part of the property. He checked them again on 20 July.

[19] At other times during the month of July, Ms Beaumont and two neighbours also checked on the horses, prior to one of those neighbours becoming so concerned that she phoned the SPCA on 29 July.

[20] The first occasion on which the Respondent visited the horses after they were shifted to Gillams Gully was on 30 July.

[21] The condition in which the SPCA Inspectors found the horses on 3 August is referred to in some detail in the Summary of Facts. They were found to be malnourished and suffering from rain scald and severe lice infestation. One had a significant penis injury, resulting in it having to be euthanised.

[22] To have left those horses in those conditions for 4 weeks shows a total disregard for the welfare of those horses on the part of the Respondent. The charges against her are serious and the penalty for her offending must reflect this. The charges do not involve animal welfare in the context of racing the animals but, rather, animal welfare out of racing. In that sense, the Respondent’s complete abdication of her animal welfare obligations does not touch upon “horse racing” as such but is, nevertheless, of great concern to the industry in general and, of course, to all those concerned with animal welfare.

[23] The Respondent has invited disqualification for life and the Adjudicative Committee believes that, having regard to the seriousness of the offending, that is an appropriate starting point.

[24] Principal aggravating factors are, firstly, the Respondent’s complacency and total lack of concern for the welfare of her horses as evidenced by the fact that she did not visit them for 4 weeks after they were moved from the relative comfort of Omoto Racecourse, in the middle of winter, to totally unsuitable accommodation at Gillams Gully which comprised mainly gorse, scrub and native bush with no grass of any nutritional value on land that was wet and muddy with an unfenced stream, a pond and numerous ditches.

[25] In considering mitigating factors, <REDACTED>. This would explain her not visiting the horses for 4 weeks to check on them, knowing that the paid “carer” was no longer responsible. It is unlikely that the Respondent would have wilfully neglected her horses to that extent, more likely it was a situation beyond her control at that time. This would explain her apparent lack of remorse and her inability to deal with these charges against her.

[26] Other mitigating factors are her admission of the breach and her previous good record. The Adjudicative Committee has no details before it of any previous involvement by the Respondent in the Racing Industry.

[27] In addition to considering aggravating and mitigating factors, as stated in RIU v L, this Adjudicative Committee is required, in this case, to consider and balance the following factors:

• the public interest;
• the interests of the Respondent;
• the interests of NZTR; and
• The seriousness of the offending.

In determining penalty in this case, the Adjudicative Committee has attempted to do so.

[28] The offending itself is at the high level on a scale of seriousness. The most serious sanction is disqualification for life. Even if warranted, that is extreme. The Respondent has suggested that such a penalty be imposed. <REDACTED>

[29] <REDACTED>

[30]  <REDACTED>  General deterrence in this matter is met by the Adjudicative Committee acknowledging that a life disqualification could be appropriate for offending of this nature, which includes a significant departure from what is required of a horse owner. <REDACTED>

[31] It is a very concerning and unfortunate set of facts. <REDACTED>.  To impose a life ban would preclude the Respondent from ever again participating in the Racing Industry. There may be a time, in the future, <REDACTED> when she may wish to be involved, in some capacity, be it as an Owner or Trainer or even to attend race meetings.

[32] The Adjudicative Committee is taking a starting point of disqualification for life. Obviously, there can be no uplift for aggravating factors. It becomes a matter of the extent to which the mitigating factors – the Respondent’s admission of the breach, her previous good record <REDACTED> should be taken into account.

[33] The Applicant has submitted that a minimum disqualification period of 10 years should be imposed for the neglect resulting in the weanling (Gallant Guru – Guipure) being euthanised and a 5-year disqualification for failing to ensure the physical health needs of the other five horses. The Adjudicative Committee finds that this is the appropriate sanction in this matter, for the reasons given above.

Penalty

[34] On the charge contained in Information A15829, the Respondent is disqualified for a period of 10 years.

[35] On the charge contained in Information A15830, the Respondent is disqualified for a period of 5 years.

[36] Such periods of disqualification are to be served concurrently.

Costs

[37] There will be no order for costs.