Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 23 February 2024 – Jeffery Lynds

Charge

1.  The RIB Informant charged Mr Lynds under the Rules of Racing that he permitted Mr R Harris, a disqualified Rider, to assist him by riding a horse trained by him, to and at the Awapuni Racecourse training facility on 2 November 2023.

2.  Mr Harris was separately charged (Information No. A15771) and took no steps to defend that charge or to attend the hearing on 2 February 2024.  His breach was found to be proved and Mr Harris was disqualified for a further period of 6 months.

Plea

3.  Mr Lynds denied the charge against him, from the time the Information was served on him on 16 November 2023.  At the hearing on 2 February 2024, all of the Informant’s evidence and exhibits were presented and Mr Lynds was present and able to question the witnesses.  Despite knowing of the hearing date for 2 months and directions to obtain Counsel if he said he wished, he had not done so.  But as he still wanted to instruct Counsel, the proceedings were adjourned part heard at the conclusion of the Informant’s evidence to enable him to do this.  He was told that if he or Counsel wished that any of the Informant’s witnesses to be recalled for questioning at the resumed hearing, the Adjudicative Committee would ensure that occurred.

4.  On 16 February 2024, Mr P Murray advised that he had instructions from Mr Lynds, and that the charge could now be admitted.  He provided detailed written submissions as to penalty in answer to those of Ms Murrow.  He was unavailable to be present on 20 February 2024, but advised that Mr Lynds wished to appear. So the issue of penalty proceeded on the basis of the parties’ written submissions and Mr Lynds’ oral submissions made on 20 February 2024.  Mr Murray did not seek to have any of the Informant’s witnesses recalled.

Rule 327

5.  This provides where relevant:

“A Trainer shall not, without the previous written consent of NZTR, employ or otherwise permit to work or to assist, in any capacity in connection with the care, control or training of any horse:

…. (a)  any person whose last licence as a …. Rider was cancelled, withdrawn or revoked”

6.  As a Disqualified Licensed Rider, Mr Harris’ Licence had been cancelled which was known to Mr Lynds.

Factual Background and Findings from the Evidence produced at the Hearing

7.  It is necessary to record that Mr Murray advised that Mr Lynds disputed some matters set out in the “Summary of Facts”.  But the findings of fact are those made from the Adjudicative Committee from the evidence and exhibits actually given, at the initially defended hearing.  No “disputed facts” hearing was sought.  It is the Adjudicative Committee’s factual conclusions, based on the evidence, which prevail.

8.  Mr Harris initially held a Trackwork Rider’s Licence and worked for Mr Lynds.  His first term of disqualification for 11 months was imposed in June 2021 and arose because he returned a positive urine sample to the Prohibited Substance Methamphetamine.  This disqualification was extended for a further 18 months on 19 July 2022 after a further Methamphetamine positive urine test occurred.  That period of disqualification was fixed from 30 June 2022 until 30 December 2023.  Mr Lynds was at the hearing involving Mr Harris on 19 July 2022, and knew of this disqualification.

9.  The Adjudicative Committee heard, and received evidence, orally by Ms Murrow, Mr S Irving, Mr N Goodwin and in writing from Ms V Algar and Mr R Carr.  Although Mr Lynds says that he “disputes” portions of that evidence, his claims are not accord, given the clear evidence which is accepted by the Adjudicative Committee.

10.  As a result of some concerns of the RIB, Ms Murrow questioned Mr Lynds on a Raceday on 26 December 2022 in the Stipendiary Stewards’ Room at Otaki Racecourse.  Mr Goodwin and Ms Algar were present.  The evidence of each was that Ms Murrow questioned Mr Lynds about his employment of Mr Harris.  He said that Mr Harris rode horses down to the track, as he was trying to keep him in employment.  He claimed that the disqualification did not make any provision to keep Mr Harris in work and it left him (Mr Lynds) without a Rider.  Mr Lynds became agitated and the exchange was heated.  He continued to assert that he did not feel the disqualification conditions were clear or made clear to him.

11.  Ms Murrow then told Mr Lynds that she was now warning him and what was happening had to stop as was not allowed.  Mr Lynds now disputes that he was warned.  He claimed to the Adjudicative Committee that it was only when served with the Information on 16 November 2023 that he realised he had been “confused” as to the position regarding Mr Harris’ employment.  He said that no formal record of the warning was made, nor did the Raceday Stewards’ Report mention it, supports his position.  But by these claims, he endeavours to divert attention from the decision as to what actually happened.  Raceday Stipendiary Stewards Reports do not deal with separate inquiries dealt with by Investigators nor report on them.  And the issue of a warning being given, it is abundantly clear from the evidence of the three other persons present.  It was accepted by the Adjudicative Committee.  Conclusively, there was a separate contemporary notebook entry made by Ms Murrow, and produced as an exhibit at 12.20pm on 26 December 2022, which precisely confirmed the warning and Mr Lynds’ response.  That exhibit “D” recalls:

“26.12

12.20  Speak to Jeff Lynds

Re employing Robert Harris.

Admits he is riding down to the track trying to keep him work.

I didnt make provisions for him to keep him in work and give him a rider.

Aggressive, defensive, wasnt made clear.

Warning given – will stop.”

12.  There has been no suggestion that this record was wrongly invented.

13.  Beyond any doubt, Mr Lynds was warned as the three witness’ state. He was unhappy and agitated in the interview, he was told that what he was doing had to cease and he said he will “stop”.

14.  As later events showed, he chose to ignore the warning.

Events of 2 November 2023

15.  About 10 months later, on 2 November 2023, three RIB Investigators were present at Awapuni Racecourse at 6.20am.  They were there to observe Mr Harris and Mr Lynds.  The evidence does not refer, nor did it need to, the reason.  They observed Mr Harris riding a racehorse on the Racecourse premises in the proximity of the hosing bay.  He was seen to swap this horse with another of a Trackwork Rider, and to mount that horse to ride it from the Racecourse premises.  Mr Lynds was seen to be present, nearby, in a motor vehicle.

16.  Mr Lynds was stopped and interviewed.  He admitted that Mr Harris had been riding horses for him to and from his Stables out to the track, but was adamant he had not ridden trackwork.  He became aggressive and argumentative and said that it was a “grey area within the NZTR Rules”, and what he was doing was permitted.  He said that Mr Harris had never ridden trackwork during his disqualification.

17.  This exchange by Mr Lynds with the two Investigators was recorded on camera which record was shown to the Adjudicative Committee.

18.  The three Investigators again questioned Mr Lynds at his Stables later that morning.  Mr Lynds was argumentative and claimed that he had been told by Mr Irving (one of the Investigators) that Mr Harris was allowed to ride his horses provided he did not do so on the Racetrack itself.

19.  Mr Irving in his evidence denied that assertion and said that he had made it clear to Mr Lynds that Mr Harris was not allowed to handle or ride any of the horses being trained by Mr Lynds.  The only “grey area”, might be where a person might break in or educate a young unregistered horse.  That has no bearing on this case as Mr Lynds does not claim that was what he was doing.  His claim, now made in penalty submissions, as being confused and unclear about this, is regrettably a “red herring” as he knew from 26 December 2022.  He has used as a device to distract attention from the actual issue – that is, no “grey area” can possibly exist for the type of acknowledged behaviour.  Mr Lynds’ eventual guilty plea acknowledges that.

20.  Also the charge does not allege prohibited behaviour in the form of Mr Harris’ riding actual Trackwork but of Mr Lynds’ permitting or employing Mr Harris to assist in the care or control of the horse and the riding occurred at and on the premises of Awapuni Racecourse.

21.  There could be no confusion on Mr Lynds’ part.  He knew as a very experienced Licensed Trainer of the NZTR Rules and Rule 327(1).  He was warned on 26 December 2022 about his contravention of the Rule.  He ignored it.

Submissions for Penalty

22.  Ms Murrow submitted that a starting point penalty should be a fine of $2,500 with also “consideration” being given to a period of 3 months’ disqualification.  She referred to a 2016 case of G E Kenny, a Class B Trainer, who had been fined $500, but that case involved very significant mitigating factors which did not exist here.  She said that there were several aggravating features of Mr Lynds’ actions including refusal to heed the warning given to him, his refusal to actually accept responsibility, and belligerent responses when questioned; and his involving Mr Harris in activity that led to that person being further disqualified (the disqualification of him under Rule 1104(3) had to be mandatory).

23.  Mr Murray’s comprehensive written submissions were that only a fine of up to $1,000 was necessary.  He referred to Mr Lynds’ good past record, long and positive involvement in the Racing Industry; his offence was out of character.  He contended that Mr Lynds may have thought he had not been warned, and may have thought advice he received as to a “grey area” applied – although Mr Murray realistically accepted that this was an irrelevant argument (and, as the Adjudicative Committee has observed, the evidence of the warning was overwhelming).

Penalty

24.  It is vital that Licensees know and adhere to the NZTR Rules and respect disqualifications imposed upon all persons under the Rules.  Otherwise, the management, integrity and interests of the Industry cannot be preserved and advanced.  Indeed, to knowingly engage disqualified persons to participate in this way, harms the sport and the requirement to safeguard all who comply with, and depend on, the Rules in order to pursue a professional involvement.

25.  Mr Lynds may have, wrongheartedly, sought to help Mr Harris, but if so, he was totally misguided.  It is no “help” to be an active party in enabling Mr Harris to offend against the Rules so as to face the mandatory consequence of further disqualification.  Mr Lynds acted in defiance of his obligations as a Licensed Trainer.  His blind refusal to follow the warning is especially troubling.

26.  Whilst Mr Murray submits that the late guilty plea needs recognition as a separate mitigating factor, the Adjudicative Committee does not accept that to be appropriate in this case.  First, the matter was defended up until the end of the Informant’s evidence, which had to be given.  The evidence was compelling and no realistic defence existed.  It was only through the wise advice of Mr Murray, that the guilty plea followed.  Yet Mr Lynds still maintained to the Adjudicative Committee that he had been confused and had not been warned.  The mitigating concession sometimes afforded for a guilty plea is meant to reflect early recognition of wrongdoing, contrition or remorse, sparing the task of witnesses giving evidence and reducing costs.  Mr Lynds, apart from the admission made after the Informant’s case – and without it being tested by questioning – still displays little genuine insight – into his behaviour.  No separate discount for the plea is warranted, but there are some mitigating matters.

27.  The Adjudicative Committee makes it clear that the stance of Mr Lynds is not an aggravating feature, so as to justify an increase in penalty, but simply an absence of mitigation.

28.  It is especially an aggravating factor that Mr Lynds’ disobedience of the warning and defiance of it, as well as his intemperate combatant manner displayed to Investigators on 2 November 2022.

29.  The interests of the Racing Industry are vital and normally such actions by a Senior Trainer would warrant suspension or disqualification of the privilege of having a Licence.  Deterrence of other Trainers is paramount.  But Mr Lynds is entitled to call in aid – his long and wide background and record – in mitigation.  The Adjudicative Committee has given this due weight so concluded that only a significant fine should follow, and no more severe a penalty.

30.  Given Mr Lynds’ long record (and that the Penalty Rule applicable to him does not provide for mandatory disqualification as was the case with Mr Harris), the Adjudicative Committee does not consider any disqualification or suspension is necessary, but a stern fine is required in order to deter others.  As there is to be no suspension or disqualification, the Adjudicative Committee adopts a starting point of a fine of $2,000.  From this, an uplift of $500 (25%) is fixed for the serious aggravating aspect of his blatant defiance of the warning.  No allowance is afforded for the final admission of the charge, but Mr Lynds’ long good record entitles him to a 20% discount which balances the aggravating  element.

31.  Accordingly, Mr Lynds is fined $2,000.

Costs

32.  Mr Lynds is ordered to pay the out of pocket expenses of the RIB incurred in having a witness travel (to attend the defended hearing).  Those are $452.76.  In addition, Mr Lynds is ordered to pay $1,500, being a 50% contribution to the RIB Adjudicative Committee’s costs (which included two attendances at Awapuni).

33.  In summary, Mr Lynds is:

(a)  Fined $2,000.

(b)  Ordered to pay $452.76 plus $1,500 towards the costs and expenses of the RIB as Informant, and Adjudicative Committee.