Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 28 January 2025 – Trevor Chambers

ID: RIB51046

Respondent(s):
Trevor Chambers - Trainer

Applicant:
Ms G Murrow - RIB Investigator

Adjudicators:
Mr Bruce Mainwaring, Mrs Nicki Moffatt

Persons Present:
Ms Murrow, Mr Chambers

Information Number:
A16875

Decision Type:
Non-race Related Charge

Charge:
Allowing a non licenced person to assist in the care, control or training

Rule(s):
321 - Other - Provisions relating to all Trainers and Pre-Trainers

Plea:
Admitted

Animal Name:
Tu Tangata

Code:
Thoroughbred

Hearing Date:
18/01/2025

Hearing Location:
Trentham Racecourse - Trentham Upper Hutt

Outcome: Proved

Penalty: Class B Trainer Trevor Chambers is fined a sum of $500

INTRODUCTION:

(1) This is a Written Decision arising as a result of issue of Information A16875 which outlined a breach of Rule 321.

Particulars of the resultant charge are that the Respondent:

Between the 16th of November 2024 and the 6th of December 2024, Trevor Chambers, Class B Trainer, permitted Chris Rauhihi & Craig Barber, unlicenced persons to assist with the training and care of the horse Tu Tangata.

(2) This constitutes an offence under Rule 321 of the NZTR Rules of Racing which provides:

A Trainer or Pre-Trainer must not employ or permit to work or assist in any capacity in connection with the care, control or training of any horse, a person who does not hold a Licence which authorises them to care for, control or train a horse (as applicable).

(3) The Penalty for this offence arises under Rule 803(1) which provides:

A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:

(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or

(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or

(c) a fine not exceeding $20,000.

(4) The Adjudicative Committee was provided with an Authority to Charge, Summary of Facts along with a copy of the Charge, Rule and Penalty Provisions. It is noted the wording of the Rule 321 has been amended to reflect the current version of the Rules effective 15th August 2024.

(5) A telephone conference was convened on Monday 13th January 2025. Mr Chambers confirmed that he had received all necessary documentation from the RIB. He extended a qualified admission of the breach. On this basis, a disputed facts hearing was set for 18th January 2025 at Trentham Racecourse.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Salient details are as follows:

(6) The Respondent, Mr Chambers is the holder of a Class B Public Trainers Licence. At the time of the alleged breach, he was the NZTR Registered Trainer of Tu Tangata.

(7) The Summary provides the names of 3 unlicenced individuals (Craig Barber, Chris Rauhihi and Steven Rauhihi) associated with Mr Chambers (Craig Barber being the owner of Tu Tangata).

(8) On 16th November 2024, the RIB was made aware that the aforementioned had been seen handling Tu Tangata at Foxton Racecourse.

(9) As a consequence, Mr Chambers was telephoned and advised that it was against the Rules to register a horse in his name, yet allow other people to take responsibility for its care and training. Mr Chambers acknowledged he understood.  This was followed by an email (cc’d to Foxton Racing Club) in which the Rule was highlighted.

(10) On 27th November 2024, photos (with comment) were shared on Facebook showing Chris Rauhihi handling a bay thoroughbred horse with a white star on Foxton Beach.  The horse had some muscle damage over the chest area.

(11) On 6th December 2024, RIB staff went to Foxton Racecourse to locate Tu Tangata, to identify if the horse was the horse photographed on Foxton Beach. The horse was not on site.

(12) RIB staff then visited the address of Mr Barber, where Tu Tangata was located in a paddock. RIB staff were satisfied that the horse present in the paddock was the same horse as that posted on social media.

(13) Mr Chambers was spoken to (date confirmed as 9th December 2025). In explanation, he advised the horse had been taken to Mr Barber’s address, as it was unsettled at the racetrack. He added, he had misunderstood the email and phone call and thought unlicenced people were allowed to train a horse away from a training facility. Later that day, Mr Chambers contacted NZTR and removed Tu Tangata from his name.

HEARING:

(14) Ms Murrow was asked to read the Summary of Facts in to record.

(15) Mr Chambers contended that his breach was limited to allowing an unlicenced person to lead the horse from the day yard to the tie up stalls and hose it down.

(16) The horse had started at Foxton Trials on 19th November 2024. The horse had been particularly difficult to handle with Mr Chambers deciding, as a result, to spell the horse. On 20th November 2024 the horse was relocated to the address of Mr Barber.

(17) Mr Chambers asserted that he could not be responsible for the care of the horse when it has been relocated to the property of an unlicenced person – in this case owner Mr Barber.

(18)  The fact that the horse on Facebook may be other than Tu Tangata, was not disputed.

(19) The hearing was concluded, with Submissions as to Penalty required to be with the RIB by the close of business on 24th January 2025.

SUBMISSION AS TO PENALTY – INFORMANT:

(20) A written Penalty Submission was provided by Ms Georgina Murrow on behalf of the RIB.

(21) The RIB sought a fine of no less than $500. The submission was silent as to costs.

(22) In support of same, the submission identified precedent by way of two previous charges under this Rule, namely RIU v Kenny (2016) – $500 fine and RIB v Lynds (2023) – $2,000 fine.

(23) Aggravating factors proffered within the submission include:

  • Despite being cooperative and polite, Mr Chambers had not taken responsibility for his offending.
  • The RIB did not accept his explanation that the horse had been spelling at the Barber property and that this had not been conveyed by Mr Chambers in that conversation dated 9th December 2024. His assertion that he had misunderstood the rules was also incorrect, in that he had been made aware of his obligations both verbally and by way of email.
  • As a Trainer, Mr Chambers has a responsibility to be conversant with the Rules.
  • RIB considered that conjecture that the horse was spelling, was no more than a convenient excuse.
  • It was only following the conversation on 9th December, did Mr Chambers call NZTR and remove the horse from his name.
  • If the horse was spelling, the Rule 320(2) would apply.
  • Allowing Barber and Rauhihi to train and care for the horse, after verbal and written direction, was in flagrant disregard of the Rules.

(24) Mitigating factors outlined within the submission include:

  • After a Disputed Facts Hearing, Mr Chambers has admitted the breach.
  • After a long training career, Mr Chambers has no previous RIB charges.

SUBMISSION AS TO PENALTY – RESPONDENT

(25) Mr Chambers noted that he had held a Licence for 45 years with no charges against his name. He reiterated he had pleaded guilty to allowing an unlicenced person to handle the horse. He asked that a warning be deemed appropriate.

DECISION:

(26) As the charge was admitted, it was deemed proved.

PENALTY DETERMINATION:

(27) In determining appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee is required to suitably deliberate upon the agreed Summary of Facts, respective submissions along with precedent.

(28) This particular Rule does not appear to be identified within the current Penalty Guide.

(29) There remains a dearth of precedent. Neither Kenny nor Lynds are particularly helpful. In both instances, it was accepted the horses were, at the time of the breach, stabled at the property of the Respondent and under their direct control.

(30) In respect of this charge, the Adjudicative Committee has some sympathy. Although the Rule is clearly written, there does remain ambiguity around where liability for adherence begins and ends.

(31) It is asserted by the Informant that if the horse was indeed spelling, then Rule 320(2) would apply. The Respondent is not charged under this Rule, so this is a moot point. Nonetheless, a breach lodged under this Rule is dealt with under the Minor Infringement Schedule.

(32) It remains clear that the Respondent’s version of events, differs significantly from those asserted by the Informant. There remains ambiguity as to whether the horse was actually spelling.

(33) In strict adherence with the Rule, then the Respondent is in breach. The breach is considered to be relatively minor in nature.

(34) Mr Chambers has no previous RIB charges in a long training career, with this seen as a significant mitigating factor.

(35) The contended breach took place over a relatively short period of time, 16 November 2024 to 6 December 2024.

(36) On balance, acknowledging the breach and reflecting mitigating factors, a fine of $500 is deemed an appropriate penalty.

PENALTY AND COSTS

The Adjudicative Committee imposes a fine of $500. No order as to cost is made.

Decision Date: 27/01/2025

Publish Date: 30/01/2025