Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 23 December 2024 – John McInerney

The Respondent, Mr J McInerney, is charged under r 156 of the NZGRA Rules.

Information A16953 reads: “On the 27th of November 2024 at Ascot Park Raceway, Jonathan Tony McInerney, a Licensed Greyhound Trainer responsible for the Greyhounds engaged in the race meeting, had an employee act negligently by inadvertently removing BUSTER’S BROTHER, trained by B Connor, from the controlled area of the race day kennels prior to Race 11, causing the Greyhound to be declared a late scratching by Stewards.”

The Respondent has admitted the breach of r 156 and has accepted the Summary of Facts.

Both parties agree that the matter can be determined on the papers.

Rule 156 provides:

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

(f) has, in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing, done something, or omitted to do something, which, in the opinion of GRNZ or the Racing Integrity Board:

(ii) constitutes misconduct or is negligent or improper;

Rule 81(1) also has some relevance and provides:

The trainer of a greyhound is responsible for, and must make provision for, the proper care and handling of each greyhound in that person’s control from the time the greyhound arrives at a racecourse for an Event or trial until the time the greyhound leaves the racecourse.

The penalty provision is r 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 except a luring and baiting offence under r 159.

(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.

(3) Any part or portion of a penalty imposed may be suspended for a time and pursuant to conditions that an Adjudicative Committee thinks fit.

Rule 173D(3) states:

On finding an offence proved an Adjudicative Committee may impose any penalty and/or affect any remedy provided by these Rules. In imposing a penalty or affecting any remedy provided in these Rules, an Adjudicative Committee, may have regard to such matters as it considers appropriate and, in imposing any penalty, may order that the whole or any part of any fine imposed be paid to any person it thinks fit.

Agreed summary of facts

1. The respondent Jonathan Tony McInerney is the holder of a Public Trainers Licence issued by GRNZ.
2. On 27 November 2024 Mr McInerney had 40 greyhounds engaged to race at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting at Ascot Park raceway. Mr McInerney did not attend the meeting, with the greyhounds being cared for by his employees.
3. Following race 10, Mr McInerney phoned Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Wallis, seeking to withdraw the remainder of his greyhounds from the meeting as, in his opinion, it was in the best interests of his greyhounds, having already had 2 greyhounds suffer career ending injuries, one of which had to be euthanised. This totalled a number of 9 greyhounds which were engaged in races 11 and 12.
4. Mr Wallis authorised the scratchings and Mr McInerney’s employees retrieved the remaining greyhounds from their raceday kennels securing them in their transportation vehicles.
5. At the prescribed time for the greyhounds to be retrieved for race 11, Mr B Connor, trainer of BUSTER’S BROTHER advised Stipendiary Steward, Mr Quirk, that his greyhound was no longer in its raceday kennel.
6. Mr Quirk made inquiries into the circumstances and established that BUSTER’S BROTHER had been inadvertently collected by an employee of Mr McInerney’s and loaded into their transportation vehicle.
7. BUSTER’S BROTHER was subsequently scratched by the Stewards due to it not being in a controlled environment for the entirety of the period leading up to its race.
8. Inquiries with employees who were responsible for uplifting Mr McInerney’s greyhounds have not been able to ascertain who was responsible for mistakenly uplifting BUSTER’S BROTHER
9. GRNZ records detail Mr McInerney first held a Trainers licence in 2008 and commenced full training of the Homebush Kennels in 2023. He has no previous breaches of this Rule.

Decision

The charge has been admitted; it is found proved.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

The Informant stated the Respondent was the holder of a Public Trainers Licence issued by the GRNZ.

Mr Quirk identified the relevant principles of sentencing to be:

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.

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 offending in question.

Mitigating factors were that Mr McInerney had admitted the breach at the first available opportunity. He understood and had accepted responsibility after it could not be established which staff member removed the greyhound and has been fully co-operative throughout the process.

It was a genuine mistake and not an intentional removal of BUSTER’S BROTHER. It was due to a number of greyhounds being removed from the McInerney kennels where BUSTER’S BROTHER was inadvertently mistaken as one of theirs.

The Respondent has no previous breaches of this nature during his training career.

An aggravating feature was that the greyhound removed, BUSTER’S BROTHER, was scratched by Stewards and therefore its connections had the ability to earn stake money taken away.

The RIB believed this could be dealt with by way of a fine.

Given there is no precedent for a breach of this type, the RIB sought a fine of half of the winning stake of the race in which BUSTER’S BROTHER was scratched from with that sum being $765.

The RIB submitted that the Adjudicative Committee should consider r 173D(3) and order that the whole of the fine be paid to the trainer of BUSTER’S BROTHER, Mr B Conner to distribute to the greyhound’s owners, the Gore T & C Racing Syndicate:

Respondent’s Penalty Submissions

The Respondent confirmed that he admitted the charge, accepted both the Summary of Facts and the Informant’s penalty submission .

Reasons for Penalty

The Respondent first held a Trainers Licence in 2008 and commenced full training of the Homebush Kennels in 2023. Personal mitigating factors are Mr McInerney’s early admission of the breach, his clear record with his having no previous breaches of the misconduct/negligence Rule, and his full co-operation with the RIB investigation.

There are no precedents for this type of offending.

The outcome suggested by the Informant and accepted by Mr McInerney is very apt. There has to be a deterrent element to the penalty, but at the same time, recognition that this was an unfortunate error by a member of the Respondent’s staff. There is nothing sinister in the circumstances of the breach; Mr McInerney was withdrawing his dogs for an understandable reason, his perceived safety of his dogs.

Penalty

A fine of $765 is imposed. It is appropriate that r 173D(3) be utilised in these circumstances. The whole of the fine is to be paid to the Trainer of BUSTER’S BROTHER, Mr B Conner to be distributed to the Greyhound’s Owners, the Gore T & C Racing Syndicate.

Costs

As the matter was heard on the papers, there are no Adjudicative costs.