Non Raceday Inquiry – Written decision dated 23 August 2022 – Trent Agent and Kimberlee Williams

 

Evidence

1. On 27 June 2022 Mr Agent and Ms Williams were a registered public training partnership under the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ).

2. They were charged with failing to comply with the GRNZ Health and Welfare Standards (Welfare Code) and in doing so failed to provide proper sanitation for the health and welfare of greyhounds under their control. It was alleged that this involved their not removing faeces, urine and feed wastes daily from the kennels they used, and failed to provide clean potable water, in breach of Rules 84, 62.1(a) and 87.5 of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.

3. Ms Williams on behalf of the Partnership of the Respondents admitted the charge. As a Partnership both Ms Williams and Mr Agent are liable.

4. Rule 82 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules provides that a Licensed person shall at all times comply with the Health and Welfare Standards and, in particular and without limitation, the Licensee shall provide proper care and accommodation for the greyhounds under their control.

The Facts
5. On 27 June 2022, staff of the Racing Integrity Board visited the property of Mr Agent and Ms Williams in Urenui, Taranaki, from which they operated as Licensees of a Registered Greyhound Training Partnership. They then had 15 greyhounds in their care. The dogs were housed in kennels in a building behind closed corrugated iron doors in darkness without windows or clear light panels in the building. Inspectors were aware from a distance on the roadway outside the property of a repugnant odour. Upon opening the doors of the building which housed the kennels, they were confronted by an overpowering odour of dog excrement and rotting meat. The 15 greyhounds were located in extremely unhygienic conditions. The faeces, urine and food waste had obviously not been removed from the kennels for some time. Dogs were standing in their own excrement, there was no drainage available and the floor of every kennel was wet. The unsanitary state of the kennels, with faeces, urine and rotted meat, was exacerbated by dirty, wet or non-existent bedding. None of the dogs wore coats despite the cold winter weather. Clear evidence of rodent infestation existed, with rat droppings on the food bench and holes had been opened in a box containing meat. A dead rat was found outside the kennels. The meat that was present appeared to contain mostly fat, cartilage and visceral tissue. Water containers for the dogs were either empty or contained a small quantity of dirty water.

6. A Racing Integrity Board Veterinarian was in attendance and checked the conditions of the greyhounds. One dog had a large untreated shoulder wound which appeared to be infected, and it was significantly underweight. Several other dogs had minor injuries and pressure sores. They were dirty and had excrement through their coats.

7. With the consent of the Trainers, the 15 greyhounds were removed and taken to a rehoming centre for required care and attention.

8. The GRNZ Health and Welfare Standards (Code of Welfare) provides mandatory standard requirements and which the Respondents failed to meet:
“1.3 All greyhounds must be provided with clean potable water at all times where they are habitually kept.
2.13 Faeces, urine and food waste must be removed at least once a day from all facilities, with faeces disposed of in a hygienic manner and in accordance with the requirements of the local government authority.
2.18 Pests, including external parasites and vermin including rodents, must be controlled.”

9. The Respondents’ training partnership had been in operation since 2018 and they have had no previous welfare related charges. They have not now renewed their Registration as a Licensed Partnership.

Penalty
10. No written submissions as to penalty were received from the Respondents.

11. On behalf of the Racing Integrity Board, Ms Murrow contended that:
a. Animal welfare interests must be upheld. She said that stern penalties must be imposed for neglect, so that all participants in the industry are put on notice that breaches relating to animal welfare will lead to their ability to participate in Greyhound Racing be removed.
b. The health and wellbeing of greyhounds is of utmost importance, first for the humane care of the dogs, and secondly to advance the future of Greyhound Racing itself which faces a challenge to the Code’s social licence.
c. Some earlier welfare related cases (Goldsack, McInerney) resulted in fines of up to $2,000, but these cases were not in the same category as the present which is infinitely more serious.
d. A starting point of two years disqualification and a fine of $2,000 is sought for what is said to be flagrant neglect.

Decision
12. This offending was at the very high end of the scale of seriousness. The conditions in which the greyhounds were found were abhorrent. It was inexcusable for them to be kept in such squalid conditions.

13. A portion of a Veterinarian’s report provided to the Committee confirmed the appalling conditions in which the greyhounds were kept and stated that quite apart from the requirements of the Greyhound Racing Rules, the Respondents were “clearly in breach of provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999”.

14. This was egregious offending. Greyhounds, as animals competing for the benefit of owners, training partners and the general public, must be treated and cared for assiduously, (that is with great care). The welfare of greyhounds, and the integrity and continuance of the Industry demands that there is strict adherence to the Welfare Code. Denunciation of this misconduct and the level of default in the duty of the Trainers, as well as the need to deter others, are factors requiring a stern sanction. To maintain the respect and confidence of the Community, and to ensure the continuance of Greyhound Racing, all who participate in the sport are strictly bound to comply with welfare requirements for their greyhounds. And the humane management of the dogs is predominant.

15. As the Joint Partners no longer hold Registered Licenses, they cannot be subject to suspension. But they must be disqualified from participating in the Industry under Rule 63.1. In addition a significant fine is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the breaches of the Health and Welfare Standards.

16. The Respondents:
a. Are jointly as Partners, as well as severally, disqualified for two years from today, 19 August 2022;
b. The Partnership is fined $2,000. This is a joint penalty applicable to the Partnership as a whole.

17. No order is made as to costs.

Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)