Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 25 November 2021 – Trent Agent and Kimberly Williams

EVIDENCE:

Introduction

[1] This penalty decision deals with an Information (No A16266) filed against the Licenced Greyhound Training Partnership of Mr Trent Agent and Ms Kimberly Williams (“the Respondents”) alleging they breached Rule 45.11.  The charge relates to Race 14 at the meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Club, on 11 November 2021.

Determination on the papers

[2] With the consent of the parties, the Adjudicative Committee (“the Committee”) made its Determination as to penalty ‘on the papers’ pursuant to paragraph 21.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Inc (GRNZ).

[3] The Committee was provided with and perused relevant documents including Information No A16266, the Summary of Facts and Penalty Submissions.

PARTICULARS OF THE CHARGE:

[4] Information No A16266 alleges that in relation to Race 14 at the Waikato GRC on 11 November:

The Respondents presented HARDCORE JET to race up 2.8 kg  in weight from its previous start at Cambridge on 14 October 2021.

[5] This charge is the kennels fourth breach of the Rule within the previous 120 days.

[6] The  breach has been referred to an Adjudicative Committee by Stewards pursuant Rule 62.3 (a) and (b) which provides that:

An Offence under these Rules may be classified as a Minor Infringement Offence where:

(a) the Offence is a breach of one of the Rules set out in the Sixth Schedule (which shall be an Additional Rule Appended to these Rules); and

(b) the person who has committed the Offence has not committed more than two (or such higher number as may be determined by the Steward from time to time in the Steward’s discretion) breaches of that Rule in the period 120 days immediately preceding, and including, the date that the Offence has been committed.

THE RULES:

[7] The relevant Rules are as follows:

Rule 45.11 provides that – Where the weight of a Greyhound recorded at a Meeting varies by more than one and a half (1.5) kilograms from the weight recorded in a Race in which it last performed that Greyhound shall be permitted to compete in the current Race, but the Trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence unless permission has been granted under Rule 45.12.

Rule 45.12 provides that – Permission shall be granted by Stewards for a Greyhound recording a weight variance of more than one and a half (1.5) kilograms to start in a Race provided that such Greyhound has not performed in any Race during the preceding 28 days, and no fine shall be imposed. For the avoidance of doubt, the day of the dog’s last start shall be counted as a day for the purposes of the 28 days.

THE PLEA:

[8] The charge is admitted by the Respondents and the Information has been endorsed “I do admit the breach” by Ms K Williams on behalf of the Training Partnership.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

[9] The Respondents, Mr Trent Agent and Ms Kimberlee Williams are a Licensed Training Partnership under the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ).

[10] Prior to the start of each Greyhound meeting Stewards are required to, pursuant with Rule 41, ensure that the weighing instrument i.e., scales, are checked for accuracy using the “check” weights supplied by the Club.  The check weights are 20 kilograms and either 10 kilograms or 5 kilograms.  If Stewards are not satisfied with the results of the inspection, they will allow for no weights to be recorded for any Greyhound competing at the meeting and notify the Club who shall take steps to remedy the matter.

[11] On the raceday in question, 11 November 2021,  the Stewards, Mr S Mulcay (Chair) and Mr W Robinson, were satisfied that the scales were accurate.

[12] On the 11 November 2021 the Respondents had HARDCORE JET engaged in Race 14, the  Virkons Disinfectant Sprint – C1 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club.

[13] HARDCORE JET was weighed, with the recorded weight being 27.3 kg which represents a 2.8 kg increase on his previous race weight of 24.5 kg on 14 October 2021.

[14] Ms. Williams was representing the Training Partnership on the raceday in question and when approached by Stewards readily admitted a breach of GRNZ Rule 45.11 and signed the Information.  This being the Partnership’s fourth breach of Rule 45.11 within the past 120 days, with the other breaches being:

• 8 September 2021 – Wanganui GRC – HARDCORE SPARTEN – (fifth offence, at the time, within 120 day reset period and referred to Adjudicative Committee) – fined $400 (64 days).
• 3 September 2021 – Wanganui GRC – BIG TIME TATUM – (fourth offence, at the time, within 120 day reset period and referred to Adjudicative Committee) – fined $300 (69 days).
• 4 August 2021 – Wanganui GRC – BIG TIME JARRED – (fourth offence, at the time, within 120 day reset period and referred to Adjudicative Committee) – fined $350 (99 days).

REASON FOR DECISION:

[15] As the charge is admitted it is deemed to be proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Penalty Submission – Applicant

Mr K Coppins, on behalf of the  Applicant, provided penalty submissions.  These are summarised as follows:

[16] The Respondents are a Licenced Training Partnership under the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ).

[17] The racing public rely on dogs racing at their optimum weights and get frustrated when greyhounds they may follow to bet on are presented to race outside their normal race weights. This causes the industry to appear unprofessional at times.

[18] The Respondents have admitted the charge and the facts are not in dispute.

[19] The charge is the Respondents’ fourth breach (within the 120 days reset period).

[20] A breach of Rule 45.11 is generally dealt with by way of a Minor Infringement Notice for the first three breaches.  On the fourth breach an Information is completed and submitted to an Adjudication Committee for consideration. Breach one receives a Minor Infringement Notice and a fine of $100.  Breach two within 120 days receives a Minor Infringement and a fine of $150, while breach three receives a Minor Infringement and a fine of $150.

Precedents

[21] The following precedents are relevant for this case.

• RIU v J McInerney, 3 September 2020, fourth breach, fined $300.
• RIU v J McInerney, 14 October 2020, fourth breach, fined $550, reduced to $300 on appeal.
• RIU v L Cole,  13 June 2021, fourth breach, fined $350.
• RIB v Agent/Williams, 11 July 2021, fourth breach fined $300.
• RIB v Agent/Williams, 4 August 2021, fourth breach fined $350.
• RIB v Agent/Williams, 3 September 2021, fourth breach fined $300.
• RIB v L Cole, 3 September 2021, fourth breach fined $300.
• RIB v J McCook, 7 September 2021, fourth breach fined $300.

[22] The RIB has historically suggested a starting level of $300 for the fourth breach of Rule 45.11, with that figure i.e., $300 being the suggested starting point in this instance.

Penalty submissions – Respondents

[23] There is no requirement or obligation on the Respondents to submit penalty submissions.  However, in circumstances where there is a reasonable explanation for a breach or mitigating circumstances, penalty submissions are helpful in enabling the Committee to evaluate the various issues that impact on penalty decision making.

[24] On this occasion the Respondents were afforded the opportunity to submit submissions but elected not to do so.

REASON FOR PENALTY:

[25] A breach of r45.11 is generally dealt with by way of Minor Infringement Notice (MIN) and penalties for such breaches are specified within the Sixth Schedule of the Master GRNZ Rules of Racing (effective 1 August 2018). The schedule provides for the first three breaches to be dealt by way of a fine between $100 and $150.   For a third (or more) breach Stewards may lodge an Information and refer the matter to an RIB Adjudicative Committee in accordance with r62.3 (b), as they have elected to do in this case.

[26] The penalty for a third breach (or more) is evaluated on a fact dependant basis taking into account a range of relevant factors, including:

1. the severity of the breach;
2. the Respondents’ level of culpability including the Respondents’ record of previous breaches and any other aggravating factors;
3. the Respondents’ personal circumstances;
4. mitigating and aggravating factors;
5. for consistency the penalties that have been imposed in like cases; and
6. any impact the offending may have on the betting public and/or the integrity of Racing.

[27] The Committee has used these factors as the criteria for evaluating the penalty result in relation to this charge.

Precedent cases

[28] With regards to a fourth breach of this Rule a $300 fine is deemed an appropriate starting point.   This was reinforced in the Appeal decision McInerney v RIU – 19 November 2019, where the Chair of the Appeals Tribunal, Mr R G McKenzie stated at paragraphs 26 to 28 inclusive:

“The Judicial Committee in its decision on 25 May 2019 stated that a penalty consistent with penalties for a third or subsequent breach of a $300 fine was appropriate. We agree…….

……. The Tribunal notes that the Racing Integrity Unit Stewards submitted for a fine of $250 – $300 before the Judicial Committee and, further, Mr Quirk in his submissions on the appeal submitted for a fine “in the range of $250-$300”. The Tribunal is satisfied that the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee of a fine of $550 is manifestly excessive”.

[29] The Applicant has submitted a number of recent cases for a fourth breach (refer paragraph 22) and these are helpful; and have been taken into account.

Mitigating factors

[30] The mitigating factors are that the Respondents admitted the breach at the first available opportunity and agreed to having the charge(s) dealt with on the papers.

[31] In terms of Rule 45.12, this breach occurred on the cusp of the 28 days requirement that the Greyhound has not performed in any Race during the preceding 28 days. 

Aggravating factors

[32] This charge is the Respondents’ fourth breach of the Rule within the reset 120-day reset period. However, overall, the Respondents’ record under this Rule is very poor as this charge represents their ninth (9^th) breach of the Rule within 12 months, and eighth (8^th) since March 2021.  The previous breaches have resulted in fines commensurate with precedent decisions, but as has been previously highlighted with regards to the Respondents’ repeated offending, It appears that fines are not having the desired deterrent effect.

[33] The weight variance, (i.e., up 2.8 kg) is significantly more than the 1.5 kg permitted by the Rule and may have impacted on HARDCORE JET’S performance as it finished 21.3 L from the winner in last place.

[34] The Applicant has suggested that a fine of $300 would be an appropriate starting point. In support of this, the Applicant referred the Committee to various recent precedent decisions.  The Committee accepts that $300 for a fourth breach is now the norm and has adopted this as the starting point with appropriate adjustments made for the mitigating and aggravating factors.

[35] The Respondents’ overall poor record must now be treated as a significant aggravating factor.  Accordingly, the Committee has applied a $150 uplift to the $300 starting point.  Balanced against that the Committee has applied a $50 discount for the admission of the breach at the first available opportunity and for agreeing to have the charge dealt with on the papers, thus resulting in time and cost savings for the RIB.

[36] Therefore, after consideration of all the factors the Committee is satisfied that a fine of $400 is deemed reasonable and appropriate in relation to this charge.

Note

Recidivist offending of this nature cannot be condoned and it is clear in this case that fines are not necessarily having the desired effect.  This Committee urges Greyhound Authorities and Stewards, in circumstances where fines are ineffective, as a deterrent, to consider what other remedial interventions may be required to ensure accountability and compliance.  Beyond what on the face of it appears to be a simple minor infringement, there are clearly wider interests to be considered including matters; such as, the health and welfare of any Greyhound required to race under or overweight; the interests of the betting public and the overall impact this has on trust and confidence in the Industry as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS:

[37] The Training Partnership of Mr Trent Agent and Ms Kimberly Williams is fined $400.

Costs

[38] Because this matter was dealt with ‘on the papers’ pursuant to paragraph 21.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure there will be no order as to costs.