Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 26 February 2024 – Logan Hollis

Background

This is the Penalty Decision arising from an admitted charge filed against Open Driver Mr Logan Hollis (“the Respondent”) who breached r 505(1) of the NZ Harness Racing Rules on the 11th of January 2024.

Authority to charge the Respondent was provided by the RIB Chief Executive Mr Mike Clement, pursuant to Rule 1108(2) on the 18th of January 2024.

The Charge

Information No. A18516 alleges:

On Thursday the 11th of January 2024 whilst a Licensed Open Driver, you placed a bet via your TAB Account on the horse ‘Papenhuyzen’ driven by you in Race 2 at the Waikato BOP HR Meeting held at Cambridge Raceway on 11/01/2024. This is in contravention of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing and, as of such, you are liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 1003(1) of the rules.

The Rules

The relevant Rules are as follows:

Rule 505 – (1) A driver may not bet, or have another person bet on their behalf, on any horse or combination of horses, in a race in which he or she is driving. (2) A breach of this sub-rule (1) is declared to be a serious racing offence;

Penalty Provisions

Rule 1001(2) Every person who commits a serious racing offence shall be liable to the following penalties:

(a) a fine not exceeding $30,000.00; and/or

(b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period or for life; and/or

(c) disqualification for a specific period or for life.

The Plea

The Respondent admitted the charge and this was confirmed via email on the 8th of February 2024, via Mr Hollis’ Lay Advocate Mr Murray Branch.

Summary of Facts

The facts are not in dispute and were accepted by Mr Hollis (via Email supplied 8th February 2024, via Mr Hollis’ Lay Advocate Mr Murray Branch.

1.  The Respondent, Logan George Hollis is the holder of both a Public Trainer and Open Drivers Licence as issued by Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ).
2.  He is 52 years old and has been licenced as an Open Driver since 1996, having previously been granted a Junior Drivers licence in 1989.
3.  The Respondent has been licenced as a Public Trainer since 2000 and has trained in Partnership with Shane Robertson since 2008 with the pair being based in the Pukekohe area.

Circumstances

4.  On Saturday the 29th of March 2014 the Respondent, Logan Hollis, opened a New Zealand TAB Account – 33351 via the internet.
5.  On Thursday the 11th of January 2024 the RIB Betting Analyst scrutinised all bets placed for the Waikato BOP Harness Racing meeting at Cambridge which was due to be held later that day.
6.  Whilst scrutinising Race 2 the Betting Analyst has identified a $200 FFWIN bet placed on the horse ‘Papenhuyzen’ at 9.30am on 11/01/2024 via TAB account number 33351.
7.  The bet in question was placed remotely and had a potential return of $1200.
8.  TAB account number 33351 was subsequently identified as belonging to the Respondent, Mr Logan Hollis. 

9.  The Respondent was listed to drive ‘Papenhuyzen’ in that race, with the race scheduled to run at 6.13pm.
10. The Respondent was also due to drive in two other races at the meeting, neither of which he had placed bets on.
11.  At approximately 12:00pm RIB Steward, Steve Mulcay, contacted the Respondent to advise him of the breach of Rule 505(1).
12.  At approximately 12:08pm, immediately following the phone call with Mr Mulcay, the respondent cashed out the bet via the TAB App on his mobile phone and subsequently closed his TAB account.
13.  At 6:13pm the Respondent drove the horse ‘Papenhuyzen’ in Race 2 – The Non-Winners Mobile Pace, with the horse finishing in 4th place.
14.  At the time of the race the bet was no longer live and the Respondents TAB account no longer active.
15.  The Respondent was interviewed at the conclusion of his drives at the Cambridge Raceway.
16.  When spoken to the Respondent admitted to operating a TAB account and having placed the FFWIN bet on himself earlier that day via the TAB App on his mobile phone.
17.  When questioned regarding the breach of Rule 505(1) the Respondent denied knowledge of the Rule, advising that he knew that it was an offence to bet on another horse in the same race that he was driving in but that he was not aware that it was an offence to bet on a horse driven by him.
18.  The Respondent further stated that this was not normally something that he would do but that he had purchased flights the night prior and the horse had worked well leading up to the race so he thought it could have a chance to win, with the money won used to cover the flights.
19.  He advised that this was a genuine mistake and that he was extremely embarrassed with his actions.
20.  Enquiries undertaken with Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) confirm that the Respondent has no previous betting or serious racing offence charges under the Rules.

Reason for Decision

The Respondent, Logan Hollis, has admitted the charge which is found proved accordingly.

Penalty Submissions – RIB

The details of Mr Hollis’ offending are recorded in the Summary of Facts;

3.  Penalty Provisions –

3.1 The penalty provisions for breaching HRNZ Rule 505(1) are contained under Rule 1001(2).

For the purposes of Rule 505(1) any breach of this sub-rule (1) is deemed to be a serious racing offence.

4.  Sentencing Principles –

4.1 The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly:

• 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 behaviour in question.
• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account.

4.2 The first three principles apply in this matter.

5.  Precedent –

5.1 There are no recent penalties for harness drivers breaching HRNZ Rule 505(1) however, there are several historic cases as below –

RIU v Harrington (21/07/2017) – HR Driver – Placed a bet on a horse driven by him in a race – Received $650 fine.

RIU v Bond (01/10/2016) – HR Driver – Placed several bets on a horse driven by him in a race – Received $1000 fine.

RIU v Fausett (15/04/2016) – HR Driver – Placed 10 x multi bets via TAB account on horse driven by him in a race – Received $1,400 fine.

RIU v Crothers (26/12/2015) – HR Driver – Placed a bet on a horse driven by him in a race – Received $650 fine.

5.2 The most recent penalties for NZTR participants breaching the comparable rule (707(1)) are as below –

RIB v Alam (27/02/2023) – Class A Jockey – Representative charge in relation to placing 132 bets on NZTR governed meetings since the 1st of August 2022 – Received $2000 fine.

RIB v O’Malley (19/02/2023) – Class A Jockey – Representative charge in relation to placing 8 bets on NZTR governed meetings between the 16th and 23rd of October 2022 – Received a $900 fine.

RIU v Johnson (January 2019) – Class A Jockey – Representative charge in relation to placing 20 bets on NZTR governed meetings between 11th August and 8th December 2018 – Received a $1750 fine.

6.  Mitigating Features –

6.1 Mr Hollis entered an early guilty plea and accepted full responsibility for his actions.

6.2 He has been compliant and cooperative with all RIB staff throughout the process.

6.3 He showed genuine remorse and was very apologetic advising that this was a genuine mistake and that he was extremely embarrassed with his actions.

6.4 When advised by RIB staff that the bet was in breach of the HRNZ Rules Mr Hollis immediately ‘cashed in’ his bet and cancelled his TAB account.

6.5 The bet was no longer ‘live’ at the time of the race.

6.6 It is accepted that there were no sinister intentions in relation to the bet placed by Mr Hollis and that it did not influence the outcome of the race in any way.

6.7 Mr Hollis has no previous charges for similar offending.

7.  Conclusion –

7.1 The RIB is seeking a penalty with a starting point of $1000.

7.2 No costs are sought by the RIB.

Penalty Submissions Respondent

On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Branch said that he considered the RIB’s starting point in relation to the charge a “Fair Penalty” and accepted the recommendation of the RIB. He added further, that there would be no chance of a repeat breach from Mr Hollis and requested the Adjudicative Committee give due consideration to the mitigating circumstances that were raised.

Reasons for Penalty

Mr Hollis has admitted one charge of placing a bet in a race in which he was a driving. The particulars of the breach are set out in the Summary of Facts, as documented above.

The penalty for a charge under this Rule is evaluated on a fact dependent basis. Although the Rules provide for the maximum penalties that may be imposed, the starting point is at the discretion of the Adjudicative Committee after consideration of the various relevant factors. Such discretion is broad and encompasses, but is not limited to the following factors:

• The need to hold the Respondent accountable and denounce his/her conduct.
• The need to protect the interests of the Harness Industry (specifically) and generally to protect the wider Racing Industry.

In addition, in evaluating penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has weighed up and had due regard for the following issues:

(1) the particular facts of the breach including its seriousness;

(2) the gravity of the Respondent’s offending and his level of culpability;

(3) the desirability for consistency so to as ensure the penalty imposed is not too dissimilar to like cases; and

(4) to ensure that public trust and confidence in the integrity of Racing is preserved.

Having reviewed numerous penalties in relation to precedent cases that breach Rule 505(1), the range of penalties span from fines of $650 to terms of suspension. While there are some similarities with this breach to historical cases, each case has its own specific set of circumstances which were evaluated when determining the final penalty. While these cases do provide some assistance, it should be noted these are largely historically based (more than 6 years old).

With regards to the seriousness of the breach and the gravity of the Respondent’s offending, the Adjudicative Committee has determined Mr Hollis’ culpability to be at the lower end.  This is because once Mr Hollis was made aware of the breach, he took all available measures to ensure that any impact or consequence of the breach, was nullified. Notwithstanding these measures, the breach is categorised under the NZ Harness Rules of Racing as a serious racing offence and therefore any starting point needs to reflect the nature and seriousness of this type of charge. It is the Adjudicative Committee’s opinion that this breach does not warrant a Suspension or Disqualification and can be best dealt with by way of a fine.

The Adjudicative Committee believes that under the circumstances, an appropriate starting point for this breach is $1,000. In considering the starting point, the Adjudicative Committee had due regard for the fact that this breach incorporated only one transaction and that it was on the horse which Mr Hollis was driving.

Mr Hollis has a number of mitigating factors for the Adjudicative Committee to consider, these include;

His admission and good record in relation to this charge or any other serious racing offence.

The fact that by his own volition, he cancelled the bet and shut his account as soon as he was made aware of the Rule breach (prior to the race).

His genuine remorse in regard to the breach and his co-operation.

It is the Adjudicative Committee’s opinion that these mitigating factors combined, afford Mr Hollis a discount of $300.

Conclusion

Mr Hollis is fined the sum of $700.

There is no order as to costs.