Non Raceday Inquiry – Reserved Penalty Decision dated 23 December 2022 – Ronald O’Regan and Nyomi O’Regan

The Charges

[1] Information No. A17960 has been filed by Racing Investigator, Richard Carr, against Licensed Public Trainers, Ronald O’Regan and Nyomi O’Regan, alleging that on the 20th day of September 2022, RIB Investigators, while undertaking a scene visit and enquiries at the address of 457 Pukahu Road, Awaiti, Paeroa, on an unrelated matter, identified a rabbit/hare carcass in a freezer unit, a breach of Rule 86.2.

[2] The Respondents were both present at the hearing of the Information and, following the reading of the charge and Rule to them, they confirmed that they admitted the charge.

[3] The charge was found proved accordingly.

The Rule

[4] 86.2 No person may:

(b) bring or allow to be brought on to grounds where a Greyhound is situated, a bird or animal whether dead or alive which might reasonably be capable of being used as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise.

Summary of Facts

[5] Mr Carr presented the following agreed Summary of Facts:

1. Mr O’Regan is 63 years of age and Miss O’Regan, being his 28-year-old daughter, are both Licensed Public Trainers, having been in a Training Partnership since 2013.

2. They currently train approximately twenty-eight racing Greyhounds from their kennels located at 457 Pukahu Road, Awaiti, Paeroa.

3. Mr O’Regan resides at the address with his wife, Kiri O’Regan.

4. Miss O’Regan resides at a separate location in Arney Street, Paeroa, along with her partner, Jake Drought.

Background

5. In February 2015, as a result of an investigation carried out by Australian media outlet – ABC’s Investigative Program “Four Corners”, illegal Greyhound live, and dead baiting practices were identified occurring across three Australian states.

6. This media and public interest was used to drive change across the Greyhound Industry in Australia, including the establishment of a Special Commission of Inquiry being established in NSW, to investigate issues of animal welfare and integrity within the Industry.

7. As a result of these concerns identified in Australia, GRNZ introduced new Regulations within the Rules of Racing regarding offences relating to both live and dead luring, and baiting.

8. These Regulations came into effect in New Zealand on 1st February 2018.

[6] Circumstances

9. On 20th September 2022, RIB Investigators undertook a scene visit and enquires on an unrelated matter at the Respondents’ kennels located at 457 Pukahu Road, Awaiti, Paeroa.

10. Mr O’Regan was the sole occupant at the address when the Investigators visited.

11. During the RIB’s visit, an Investigator, while undertaking the scene exhibits role, located a rabbit/hare carcass in the freezer located within the first kennelling block and Greyhound feed preparation area on the premises/grounds.

12. At the time, this was not brought to fellow Investigators’ attention, and they only became aware once they had departed the address.

13. The following morning, 21st September 2022 at 08:00 am, an RIB Investigator returned to the Respondents’ kennels to undertake enquiries, directly related to the rabbit/hare carcass that had been located at the kennels the afternoon prior.

14. During this visit, a recorded interview was undertaken at the premises of both Trainer Mr O’Regan and his wife, Kiri O’Regan, who is heavily involved in the day-to-day running of the kennels. During this interview, the rabbit/hare carcass sat in situ as at the previous visit on 20th September 2022.

15. At the beginning of this interview, Mr and Mrs O’Regan were shown two photographic images obtained by the Exhibits Officer of the rabbit/hare carcass the day prior and asked for an explanation.

16. They were also presented with a copy of Section 86 of GRNZ Rules of Racing (6 April 2022) – Offences Relating to Luring & Baiting.

17. Mr O’Regan confirmed, during the interview, that he was aware that the rabbit/hare carcass was on his property and stated that it had been there for approximately two weeks prior.

18. When questioned as to whether he was aware that this was a clear breach of the GRNZ Rules of Racing, he responded: “Not really, no. Not with the other hobby I’ve got.” He confirmed this “hobby” as pig hunting.

19. In response to further questioning around Rule 86.2, Mr O’Regan responded “We understand it, we know the rule.”

20. Mr O’Regan stated that the carcass had been brought onto his property by his daughter’s partner, 27-year-old Jake Drought.

21. Mr O’Regan was adamant that the rabbit/hare was already deceased when it was brought on to his property. He stated that Mr Drought “either shot it or it was a roadkill. He just turned up with it, and said he had put it in the freezer for the puppies. He knows what the Rules are”.

22. Mr O’Regan confirms that he has been pig hunting for near on 57 years and now hunts on occasions with Mr Drought.

23. He alleges that Mr Drought’s intention of bringing it to the property was purely for training purposes of Mr Drought’s four mongrel pig dog pups, and he had witnessed Mr Drought present the carcass to his puppies on one occasion.

24. Mr O’Regan has four pig dogs caged separately from the Greyhounds on the property.

25. Separate enquires were undertaken with Mr Drought, who stated that he hit the rabbit/hare with his vehicle while travelling along Wani Road, en route to the O’Regan’s.

26. He believes that he hit the rabbit/hare on a Thursday night approximately two weeks earlier.

27. At the time of the incident, it is alleged that his partner, Nyomi O’Regan, was also in the vehicle.

28. Mr Drought states that he took the carcass from his vehicle and “chucked it” into the first kennel block placing it into the bottom freezer of fridge/freezer unit, which he referred to as the “pig dog freezer”.

29. He believes that Miss O’Regan told her father that they had hit the rabbit/hare and that Mr O’Regan would have become aware of its location on feeding the pig dogs the following morning.

30. The carcass was stored in a small freezer in a standalone fridge/freezer unit within the first kennel block, and adjacent to a separate vertical freezer.

31. Located in the freezer area along with the carcass was a frozen mullet, frozen squid, and a pack of sausages past their used by date.

32. When questioned regarding the contents of this freezer in relation to the racing Greyhounds, both Mr O’Regan and Kiri O’Regan were adamant that this freezer was used separately only for the pig dogs’ food and fishing (fish bait).

33. Kiri O’Regan stated that this was also verbally explained to two RIB Staff – Greyhound Racing Steward, Philippa Kinsey and Veterinarian, Joan Hessell, when an audit of the kennels was undertaken on 5 July 2022.

34. Enquiries were undertaken with both P Kinsey and J Hessell, with both denying ever having had a conversation with Kiri O’Regan on the day of the audit regarding the alleged separate freezer usage solely for the pig dogs and fish bait.

35. It was noted that the top fridge unit of the fridge/freezer unit was used to contain supplements for the Greyhounds.

36. The separate standalone vertical freezer contained solely boxes of meat patties and feed for the Greyhounds.

37. Post the interview of the O’Regan’s and prior to removal of the rabbit/hare carcass from the freezer in question, it was noted that “PIG DOGS FISHING” had been written on the freezer door and underlined in marker pen.

38. The Scene Exhibits Officer has confirmed that there was nothing written on the door of the freezer in question during RIB’s initial visit on 20 September 2022.

39. An inspection of the rabbit carcass prior to its disposal by means of incineration, identified it had likely sustained a head wound, which has potentially led to its death. Other than for the obvious head wound, the remainder of the carcass was unremarkable.

40. The R & N O’Regan Training Partnership GRNZ Judicial Details include six previous breaches of Rules between February 2014 and September 2021 for assorted breaches.

41. Mr Ron O’Regan’s GRNZ Judicial Details as a sole entity trainer has a total of ten previous breaches and offences between November 2005 and June 2022.

42. Miss Nyomi O’Regan’s GRNZ Judicial Details as a sole entity trainer has no adverse recordings.

[7] Informant’s Penalty Submissions

Mr Carr presented the following written Penalty Submissions

1. Introduction

1.1 Mr O’Regan is 63 years of age and Miss O’Regan, being his 28-year-old daughter, are both Licensed Public Trainers, having been in a Training Partnership since 2013.

1.2 They currently train approximately twenty-eight racing Greyhounds from their kennels located at 457 Pukahu Road, Awaiti, Paeroa.

1.3 They are charged with one Information, alleging they have committed an offence contrary to Rule 86.2(b) of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing (GRNZ) Incorporated.

1.4 Mr O’Regan has admitted the Rule breach on behalf of the Training Partnership. (Miss O’Regan admitted the charge at the hearing).

1.5 The Informant’s position is that any penalty must not only demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending but also function as a strong deterrent to others. The public perception of baiting and luring is that of a horrendous and illegal practice designed to blood Greyhounds, supposedly to give them a winning edge. The reputation of the Industry relies on members following the Rules, and breaches such as these undermine public trust and confidence and bring the Industry into disrepute. Anything which brings this trust and confidence into question, whether or not the Respondents actually intended to engage in dead-baiting or luring practices, must be met with a condign sanction.

1.6 It is imperative to the future success of Greyhound Racing, and racing in general, that animal welfare standards and integrity are maintained to the highest possible level. This is necessary to ensure the ongoing maintenance of a social licence to continue Greyhound Racing.

2. Penalty Provisions

2.1 The relevant purposes and considerations are helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal decision in RIU v L (13th May 2019):

Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/ and those who are to deal with the profession….
….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 proportionate balance between:
o the public interest;
o the interests of the offending member;
o the interests of the professional body as a whole;
o the seriousness of the offending; and
o any aggravating and mitigating factors.

2.2 The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge can be summarised briefly:

(i) Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
(ii) In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
(iii) A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question.

3. Public Interest

3.1 The importance of animal welfare must be considered in this case.

3.2 The Informant acknowledges that there is no evidence suggesting that the rabbit/hare carcass was ever intended or used for dead baiting or luring purposes. The O’Regan’s have provided what appears to be a plausible explanation for having the carcass on the property/grounds due to training in situ pig dog puppies.

3.3 However, as explained further below, there is a high public interest in preventing any offending such as this, that could in other instances involve dead baiting or luring. The Rule has been drafted very strictly in order to reduce any risk that this activity will be engaged in.

4. Interests of the Professional Body

4.1 Offending of this nature carries with it the significant risk of adversely affecting the interests of the professional racing body. Although this is the first case of its kind in New Zealand, the health and wellbeing of Greyhounds is of the utmost importance and concern to GRNZ, and crucial to the future of Greyhound Racing. The social licence of the Industry is under challenge. There is therefore a high interest in the professional body maintaining public perception that this type of activity is not engaged in within the industry in New Zealand. This interest is engaged by both dead and live baiting, both of which involve significant animal welfare concerns.

4.2 The Rule is drafted very strictly to achieve this purpose, due to the difficulties inherent in detecting offending involving dead baiting or luring.

5. RIB’s Position as to Penalty

5.1 Rule 86.4 – Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:

(a) a minimum fine of $10,000.00 for anyone (1) Offence; and/or
(b) Suspension; and/or
(c) Disqualification; and/or
(d) Warning Off.

5.2 The RIB submits the penalty in this case should be a 6-months period of disqualification.

6. Precedents

6.1 There appear to be no comparable cases or precedent of this nature in New Zealand to assist the Adjudicative Committee.

7. Mitigating Factors

7.1 The Respondents have admitted the breach by pleading guilty when the Information was laid.

7.2 As noted above, there is no evidence to support that the rabbit/hare carcass was ever intended to be or used for dead baiting or luring purposes. An inspection of the carcass, prior to its disposal by means of incineration, indicated that it had likely sustained a head wound, which has potentially led to its death. Other than the obvious head wound, the remainder of the carcass was unremarkable. This mitigating factor must be weighed against the high public interest and the high interest of the professional body in deterring any conduct that gives rise to a risk of or even suggests that Industry participants might be engaging in dead-baiting or luring occurring.

7.3 No additional costs have been incurred by the Adjudicative Committee or RIB.

7.4 That the Respondents have been co-operative throughout the process.

8. Aggravating Factors

8.1 Mr O’Regan, during the interview on 21st September 2022, admitted to having made an error and that he was aware of GRNZ Rule 86.2, stating – “We understand it, we know the Rule”.

8.2 Miss O’Regan, being in the vehicle at the time that the rabbit/hare was accidentally struck along with her partner, Mr Drought, knowingly brought the carcass onto the grounds of the O’Regan’s kennels/training facility.

8.3 Mr O’Regan had knowledge, along with Miss O’Regan, of the carcass being on the grounds/premises but failed to remove or dispose of it.

8.4 Following interviewing the O’Regan’s on 21st September 2022, and prior to removal of the rabbit/hare carcass from the freezer in question, it was noted that “PIG DOGS FISHING” had been written on the freezer door and underlined in marker pen.

8.5 The Scene Exhibits Officer has confirmed that there was nothing written on the door of the freezer in question during the RIB’s initial visit on 20 September 2022. This is supported by digital photos taken on the day (these were produced at the hearing) This may be an aggravating factor, as it suggests that the Respondents attempted to create evidence consistent with their explanation about the reasons for possessing the carcass.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The offending in this case is of a strict liability nature with the Respondents responsible for having the rabbit/hare carcass on their grounds, regardless of intent. With the rabbit/hare being an “animal”, that meets the ruling criteria – whether dead or alive, which might reasonably be capable of being used as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise.

9.2 The RIB suggests a starting point of a 6-months disqualification for this charge.

9.3 It is accepted that there is no evidence to support that the rabbit/hare carcass was ever intended to be or was used for dead baiting or luring purposes, and the RIB has accepted the Respondents’ explanation.

9.4 However, the Respondents have been highly negligent in their actions and careless in allowing this carcass to be brought onto their grounds.

9.5 It is paramount to the integrity of the sport that the GRNZ Rules and Regulations are strictly adhered to.

9.6 The RIB therefore questions the public perception of having this rabbit/hare carcass located in a freezer in a kennelling block of a licensed Greyhound training facility and as to whether the public perception would differentiate between the possession of a sole dead animal versus the atrocities of baiting and luring.

9.7 Therefore, any penalty must not only demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending, but also function as a strong deterrent to others. The reputation of the Industry relies on its members following the Rules, and breaches such as this undermines public trust and confidence, and brings the Industry into disrepute.

9.8 It is imperative to the future success of Greyhound Racing, and racing in general, that animal welfare standards and integrity are maintained to the highest possible level. This is necessary to ensure the ongoing maintenance of a social licence to continue Greyhound Racing.

[8] Submissions of Respondents

The Scene Inspection

1. Mr Farrell questioned the right of Investigators to inspect and photograph areas of the property without the knowledge or consent of the Respondents.

2. Mr Carr explained that the Investigators had visited the Respondents’ property in connection with an unrelated matter. Mr O’Regan had showed the Scene Exhibits Officer (Courtney Fox) the facilities, and had then consented to be interviewed by two other Investigators. The Scene Exhibits Officer had continued on with her duties, he said.

3. Mr O’Regan then explained that the three Investigators had visited his property in connection with a high Cobalt reading in one of his Greyhounds, BIG TIME TASTY. Following the interview, he said, he questioned the whereabouts of Ms Fox. He was alerted to this by the barking of his pig dogs. She had taken photographs, including a photograph of the rabbit carcass, he alleged, without his knowing. He believed that the Investigators were aware of the presence of the carcass prior to their leaving the property. He was devastated by what has followed, he said.

4. Mr Carr said that Ms Fox had undertaken the exhibiting process regarding the Cobalt, but had not brought the presence of the carcass to the attention of the other Investigators while they were at the property. Ms Fox was not aware, at the time, that the presence of the carcass was in breach of a Rule.

5. After leaving the property, Ms Fox had spoken to a Greyhound Steward about the presence of the carcass, who told her that it was an offence, Mr Carr said. Ms Fox then informed the other Investigators of the presence of the carcass. The property was revisited the following morning.

The Charge

6. Mr O’Regan said that the present charge had come about through “an absolute blue” on his part. He is very well aware of the Rules, he said. He would never bait dogs. His property was open and any activities could be easily observed. Mr Drought knew the Rules. He had placed the carcass in the freezer on a Thursday night. They had been so busy, and the carcass was overlooked. The carcass was Mr Drought’s for his pig dogs, he said. It should not have been in the freezer – Mr Drought should have taken it home. He had forgotten that it was there. Ms Fox was the first person to look in the freezer since the carcass was placed there, he said. He was aware that the rabbit was on the property, but not aware that it was in that freezer.

7. Mr Drought said that he had hit the animal in his car on the road on the Thursday night, returning from visiting Mr and Ms O’Regan. Ms O’Regan was in the vehicle with him. He owns pig dog pups, which he keeps at the O’Regan’s, because he is unable to keep them in town. He had kept the carcass for training of those pups. He had placed it in the Pig Dogs/Fish Bait freezer to use it for that purpose. It would have been used to train the dogs not to chase rabbits while hunting, he explained. He was not aware that the carcass was not permitted at the kennels property, and he was very sorry for the trouble he had caused. He ought to have taken it home, he said.

Penalty

8. Mr Farrell submitted that there was never any intent on the part of the Respondents to use the carcass for Greyhound Racing. This has been accepted by the RIB, he stressed. He referred to the Informant’s Penalty Submissions – “penalties are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence”.

9. Mr O’Regan said that the partnership had handed in its Licence when he became aware of the threat that this charge would pose to Greyhound Racing. For a period of 7 weeks they did not race. The partnership had been “warned off” for a period of 21 days by NZGRA, he said.

10. Mr Farrell submitted that the offence was at “the minor end of the scale”. There was no public interest in the proceedings, at least until the decision is released.

11. He said that, if a 6-months period of disqualification is imposed, that would mean that the Respondents would earn no income from Greyhound Racing for that period. An even greater problem would be what to do with 28 racing Greyhounds. A dog cannot get into the GAP programme for at least 3 months, he said.

12. Mr Farrell submitted that the manner in which Mr O’Regan cooperated during the original visit, and subsequently, should be taken into account. In all of the circumstances, he submitted, a “small to medium fine” would be appropriate. He further submitted that, the Respondents having earlier been “warned off”, they had already been penalised for the breach.

13. The provisions of the penalty Rule, Rule 86.4, which provide for a minimum fine of $10,000.00 were pointed out by the Adjudicative Committee.

14. Mr O’Regan said that any period of disqualification would mean that the dogs would have to be removed from their property. It may result in 28 big, healthy racing dogs being put down, he said, because it will not be possible for them to be rehomed. He posed the thought of what effect that would have on the image of Greyhound Racing.

15. Mr O’Regan told the hearing that the Partnership trains Greyhounds on a 50/50 basis. The income from that is his sole source of income. Ms O’Regan does have outside employment. His primary concern was for the dogs. The Partnership is not in a position to pay a large fine, but he believed that they would find a way to do so, if it meant they could avoid disqualification.

16. Mr O’Regan raised the possibility of a suspension rather than disqualification. A suspension would allow them to retain their Greyhounds, at present on their property, and to look after them. He would have to find some form of paid employment. The cost of feeding the dogs is $800 per week, he said.

[9] Reasons for Penalty

1. The Greyhound Training Partnership of Ron and Nyomi O’Regan is charged with a breach of Rule 86.2.b in that they brought onto their kennel’s property the carcass of a dead hare or rabbit, being an “animal whether dead or alive which might reasonably be capable of being used as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise”. The carcass was discovered in a fridge/freezer on the property by a Scenes Exhibit Officer of the Board during a routine investigation of an unrelated matter.

2. The Respondents admitted the breach when confronted by Investigators of the Racing Integrity Board at their property the following day.

3. The Respondents are the first persons charged under the Rule 86.2.b.

4. Their explanation for the presence of the carcass? Mr Jake Drought, partner of the Respondent, Nyomi O’Regan, admitted at the hearing that he had hit the animal with his car and had retrieved it from the road, taken it back to the Respondents’ kennels and placed it in a fridge/freezer there, with a view to using it in the training of his pig dogs, which were kept at the property.

5. The Adjudicative Committee accepts that version of events. Surprisingly, the Respondent, Ron O’Regan, admitted to having had knowledge of the presence of the carcass in the fridge/freezer while, at the same time, admitting that he was aware of the Rule. This chain of events was unfortunate for Mr O’Regan, but he and his Training Partner, Nyomi O’Regan, are responsible for the presence of the carcass, which they have acknowledged.

6. It is most likely that the carcass of the dead animal remained untouched in the fridge/freezer, until discovered by RIB Investigator, Courtney Fox. The carcass is described in the Summary of Facts as “unremarkable”, with the likely cause of death stated as being a head wound sustained when struck by Mr Drought’s vehicle. It was clear, from its condition, that the carcass had not been used for baiting or as a lure for the Greyhounds. Neither was there any evidence that it was to be used for that purpose.

7. The absence of any evidence that the carcass had been or was intended to be used “as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise”, places this breach in the low-level category as far as breaches of the Rule are concerned.

8. The Penalty Rule is Rule 86.4 which provides:

Any Person found guilty of an Offence under this Rule shall be liable to:

(a) A minimum fine of $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence and/or;
(b) Suspension; and/or
(c) Disqualification and/or;
(d) Warning Off.

9. The Informant, in his Penalty Submissions, has submitted that a starting point of 6-months disqualification should be adopted. The Appeals Tribunal in RIU v L (2019), in considering the appropriateness of disqualification as a penalty, stated that:

Removal . . . from a profession because of serious misconduct is a frequent and inevitable consequence that follows upon necessary sentences or sanctions. Where there is serious misbehaviour by a professional of behaviour involving deliberate dishonest conduct in breach of the rules of the profession, of the rules [sic]. . . the privilege of remaining in the profession should usually be forfeited . . .

The Adjudicative Committee believes that that threshold of “serious misbehaviour” and “deliberate dishonest conduct” is not reached in the present case.

10. The Adjudicative Committee has noted, with concern, the submissions of the Respondents concerning the effect, not so much on them as on their Greyhounds, of a disqualification. Apart from the obvious consequences to the Respondents which flow from a disqualification (Rule 63.5), the Respondents drew the Adjudicative Committee’s attention to an animal welfare matter of serious concern, involving the fate of their 28 racing Greyhounds, should they be disqualified. We were told that there is a 3-months waiting list to place Greyhounds with GAP (Greyhounds as Pets, a registered charity operated through GRNZ rehoming Greyhounds that are no longer suitable for racing). We have since learned that GAP is a rehoming agency and not the organisation that would retrain the Greyhounds for suitable rehoming. We now understand that the more appropriate rehoming agency is GRNZ Great Mates, which is dedicated to rehoming Greyhounds by fully preparing each retired racing Greyhound for a new life as a pet. The waiting period will depend on waiting lists and Great Mates’ capacity and may not be as long as 3 months, but additional pressure would be put on Great Mates to accommodate 28 Greyhounds. We were also told that there is little or no prospect of the Greyhounds being taken in by another kennel or kennels, as all other kennels are at full capacity. The Adjudicative Committee has no reason to doubt this. The Respondents, with no income from racing their Greyhounds, we were told, would not be able to afford the $800 per week cost to feed the animals. This fact, we find, precludes any consideration of a disqualification or even suspension of the partnership’s Training Licence.

11. The Respondent, Ron O’Regan, at age 63, has said that any period of disqualification would, most likely, result in the end of his long career as a Greyhound Trainer. He has given a lot to the Industry during that time. It would be difficult to re-establish himself after any time out of the Industry.

12. Taking all factors into account, the Adjudicative Committee has decided that a fine is the optimum penalty. It is accepted that this may result in some hardship to the Respondents. However, a fine will enable them to continue their training and racing operation and, not least of all, to continue to care for, train and race their Greyhounds. The “animal welfare” aspect, on which we have placed great emphasis, will be satisfied.

13. It is fair to say that there are a number of personal mitigating factors which would normally be taken into account by this Adjudicative Committee in arriving at the appropriate quantum of fine. Some are referred to in the Informant’s Penalty Submissions. In addition, there is the previous good record of each Respondent – 9 years in Partnership and considerably longer than that in the case of Mr O’Regan, on his own account and the obvious remorse of the Partners. Likewise, there are a number of aggravating factors referred to in the Informant’s Penalty Submissions to which the Adjudicative Committee would also normally have regard. However, because of the mandatory minimum, there is no scope for any reduction for any mitigating factors.

14. It would also normally be taken into account that this is a low-level offence, warranting a reduction in any starting point.

15. However, the Adjudicative Committee having decided that a fine is to be the penalty, Rule 86.4 provides for a minimum fine of $10,000 for a breach of the Rule. This is a mandatory minimum. There are no factors in this case which warrant a fine greater than $10,000.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY

1. The Adjudicative Committee therefore determines, for the above reasons, that the mandatory minimum imposed by Rule 86.4 of a $10,000 fine is appropriate.

2. The Training Partnership of Ron and Nyomi O’Regan is fined the sum of $10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Dollars).

COSTS

The Informant does not seek costs.

There will be no order for costs in favour of the Adjudicative Committee.