Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 6 December 2024 – Lisa Cole

1.  The Informant has filed one representative charge against the Respondent alleging that she has committed an offence under Rule 109.2 of the Greyhound Rules of Racing (the Rules), more particularly,

That between 25 October 2022 and 6 November 2022 the Respondent, being the owner of

• Allegro Kah
• Big Time Geneva
• Allegro Asher
• Big Time Shady
• Big Time Lexus
• Big Time Rufus
• Big Time Odette
• Big Time Ryder

Failed to take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired greyhound by failing to provide the full identity and contact details of the new owner in the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed.

2.  As noted in a Minute of the Adjudicative Committee dated 1 November 2024, the Respondent has admitted the charge and directions were made for this matter to be heard on papers.

3.  Submissions as to penalty were received from both parties.

BACKGROUND

4.  The Respondent, Mrs Lisa Cole, holds a Trainer’s Licence issued by Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) alongside her husband Mr Brendon Cole, she operates Big Time Kennels, a major greyhound training enterprise near Palmerston North. For the 2023/2024 season, Big Time Kennels achieved significant success winning over $3.792 million in stake money and securing more than 900 race wins consistently leading the NZ Trainers Premiership.

5.  Under Rule 109.2 of the Rules, owners of greyhounds are required to take reasonable care in rehoming retired greyhounds.

6.  In May 2023, GRNZ requested the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) to investigate anomalies related to several greyhounds reported as being privately rehomed by Big Time Kennels.

7.  GRNZ had identified irregularities in the records of eight greyhounds, being the greyhounds referred to in the representative charges recorded above in paragraph 1.

8.  The anomalies included identical phone number prefixes, purportedly belonging to unrelated individuals across NZ, multiple greyhounds allegedly rehomed to the same individuals, inability to contact any of the listed phone numbers, missing email addresses, incomplete or vague physical addresses, and a lack of official veterinary records such as desexing certificates.

9.  Upon review, GRNZ noted discrepancies in the records of the following greyhounds: Allegro Asher, Allegro Kah, Big Time Geneva, Big Time Shady, Big Time Lexus, Big Time Odette, Big Time Rufus and Big Time Ryder.

10.  The addresses listed for rehoming were insufficiently detailed, such as “Auckland”, or “Waitomo”, without specificity and remote or extensive locations like “Kaipara Pukehuia Road” and then “State Highway 35, Raūkūmara”. In all instances, no actual house address was provided.

11.  Despite requests from the RIB, the Respondent could not provide additional address details beyond what was already recorded.

12.  Similarly, all phone numbers associated with the rehoming records shared the same prefix, yet were attributed to different individuals. Attempts by the RIB to contact these numbers through calls and text messages yielded no responses, and all calls were directed to the same automated voicemail message.

13.  GRNZ policy also mandates that greyhounds must be desexed and receive dental treatment prior to rehoming, with GNRZ covering the associated costs.

14.  When requested, Mr Brendon Cole provided a handwritten list of desexed dogs signed by a veterinarian, Dr Charlie Boyce, but the list was not contemporaneous and did not align with the dogs identified as privately rehomed.

15.  The Respondent submitted photographs of typed records signed by Mr Boyce; however, these were not contemporaneous.

16.  GRNZ confirmed that neither the Coles nor their veterinarian had sought reimbursement for these procedures.

17.  During interview, the Respondent acknowledged lapses in record keeping, particularly in failing to capture full address details for rehomed dogs.

18.  Mr Brendon Cole recalled one instance of a male in Gisborne collecting two greyhounds, but could not provide further information regarding the eight dogs in question.

19.  Mr and Mrs Cole claimed to have advertised on Facebook and on platforms offering $500 per dog for rehoming, but failed to substantiate this claim.

20.  The only evidence presented was a Facebook post from Big Time Kennels advertising a rehoming offer, posted after the investigation had commenced and which did not pertain to the eight greyhounds under scrutiny.

21.  As a result of inadequate records, the RIB has been unable to verify the claimed rehoming of the eight greyhounds or confirm that they were not euthanised, raising concerns about compliance with Rule 109.2.

RELEVANT RULES

22.  Rule 109.2 of the Rules provides

The Owner shall take all reasonable care in selling, gifting or placing a retired Greyhound and the Owner shall provide the full identity and contact details of the new owner on the prescribed form with the necessary declaration completed.

23.  Rule 109.3 further provides

The Association or its Nominated agent shall have the right any time to demand the Greyhound be presented for inspection to confirm its wellbeing.

24.  Under the penalty provisions provide for in Rule 63.1 of the Rules

Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:

(a)  a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence except a luring/baiting Offence under Rule 86; and/or

(b)  Suspension; and/or

(c)  Disqualification; and/or

(d)  Warning Off.

25.  Offence is further defined under Rule 62.1 and provides that

Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:

(a)  contravenes any of these Rules;

(cc)  acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Rules made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules;

INFORMANT’S SUBMISSIONS

26.  In written submissions, Mr Dow highlights that while this failure is categorised as a documentation and record keeping breach, which while on the surface is administrative in nature, it is critical to ensuring the welfare of rehomed greyhounds. As a result of the failure by the Respondent, GRNZ and the RIB cannot verify the wellbeing of the greyhounds or confirm whether they were privately rehomed or euthanised.

27.  The Informant highlights anomalies in the records provided by the Respondent, including the identical prefixes and phone numbers attributed to different individuals, incomplete or vague physical addresses, absence of email addresses and lack of official veterinary records for desexing and dental treatments. Mr Dow notes that when asked for further information, the Respondent could not substantiate her claim or provide evidence for the rehoming process such as advertisements or other contemporaneous records.

28.  The Informant argues that the Respondent’s failures repeated across eight cases are particularly serious because they undermine the purpose of the record keeping requirements, which aim to maintain industry integrity and public confidence by ensuring animal welfare.

29.  Mr Dow submits that a penalty of $8,000, the equivalent to $1,000 per greyhound would reflect the seriousness of the breach.

30.  It is acknowledged by Mr Dow that mitigating factors, such as the Respondent’s admission of the charge, could warrant a reduction in the fine.

31.  In comparing this case to precedents, Mr Dow draws attention to RIU v Frederickson [2023] RIB 22807, where a $750 fine was imposed for a documentation breach involving a single greyhound. Mr Dow notes however, that the present case is more serious due to the inability to verify the greyhounds’ wellbeing.

32.  Similarly, Mr Dow notes RIU v McInerney and Armstrong [2018] JCA, where a starting point of $7,500 was adopted for breaches resulting in deaths of five greyhounds (being $1,500 per greyhound) with an ultimate penalty of $5,000 (being $1000 per greyhound). This was described by the Committee as a global mid-range starting point. While no deaths are confirmed in the Respondent’s case, the inability to ensure the greyhounds’ welfare justifies, Mr Dow submits, a starting point of $1,000 per dog.

33.  Lastly, Mr Dow notes that the Respondent’s personal record includes prior warnings and fines for minor rule breaches, but none that would necessitate a penalty uplift.

34.  Mr Dow emphasises that breaches of this nature threaten the greyhound racing industry’s social licence and sustainability, requiring penalties that deter similar conduct and uphold public confidence.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

35.  Mr Brosnahan, on the Respondent’s behalf, notes that she has acknowledged her responsibility as a registered owner of the greyhounds and as trainer of the other two, cooperated fully, and admitted the breach of the Rules at an early stage in the proceeding, therefore minimising costs.

36.  The Respondent accepts that her failure constitutes a documentation record keeping breach, resulting in GRNZ and RIB being unable to verify the rehoming of the greyhounds.

37.  Mr Brosnahan submits that the Respondent also acknowledges the possibility that she and her husband may have been deceived by individuals posing as rehomers, who pocketed funds intended for rehoming expenses. However, this possibility cannot be proven or excluded. The Respondent asserts that she inputted the provided details into the forms, but did not have direct contact with the rehomers.

38.  Mr Brosnahan notes that Mr Brendon Cole recalls one individual from Gisborne collecting two greyhounds, but cannot provide further information due to the passage of time and involvement of other staff members. The Respondent suggests that while the phone numbers might appear suspicious when viewed collectively, she did not see them together at one time, and therefore her suspicions were not aroused. It is further clarified that four individuals each took two greyhounds, contrary to the suggestion that multiple greyhounds were rehomed to the same person.

39.  In relation to the desexing certificates, the Respondent disputes any adverse inference suggested by the Informant. It is submitted that certificates were provided on request and GRNZ confirmed that Big Time Kennels has never sought reimbursement for desexing or dental treatments for any privately rehomed dogs, including those whose rehoming is bona fide and not in question.

40.  Mr Brosnahan agrees with the Informant’s principles for determining penalty, but argues that a starting point of $1,000 per dog is excessive. Mr Brosnahan notes that RIU v McInerney and Armstrong involved the deaths of six greyhounds due to negligence. In contrast, Mr Brosnahan submits that the Respondent’s breach is solely an administrative failure, warranting a lower starting point of $750 per dog.

41.  Finally, Mr Brosnahan highlights the Respondent’s exemplary compliance following the identification of the breach and full cooperation with the investigation. While it is acknowledged that the Respondent has a history of minor breaches, these should be viewed in context, noting that Big Time Kennels races approximately 4,000 greyhounds annually and has done so for a decade. Mr Brosnahan submits that these factors warrant recognition and credit in determining an appropriate penalty.

PENALTY DECISION

42.  The Adjudicative Committee has carefully considered the submissions of both the Informant and the Respondent, alongside the Summary of Facts. The Respondent has admitted a representative charge under Rule 109.2 of the Rules. This charge pertains to her failure to provide full identity and contact details of the new owners of eight greyhounds rehomed between 25 October 2022 and 6 November 2022. The Adjudicative Committee notes the charge, while representative reflects eight offences of similar nature committed in analogous circumstances.

43.  The Adjudicative Committee acknowledges the significance of the record keeping requirements under Rule 109.2. These Rules are vital to ensure the welfare of rehomed greyhounds, maintaining industry integrity and public confidence.

44.  The Respondent’s failure to meet these requirements has prevented GRNZ and RIB from verifying the rehoming of the greyhounds and ensuring their welfare. While this failure is categorised as administrative, it nonetheless constitutes a serious breach of the Rules.

45.  While the Adjudicative Committee has had regard to the submissions of the Respondent as to the possibility that the Respondent and her husband, Mr Brendon Cole, may have been deceived by individuals posing as rehomers, such inference is speculative and not supported by the evidence.

46.  It is equally open to inference, that it is now entirely uncertain as to what ultimately happened to the dogs in question.

47.  The one matter that the facts do categorically establish is the importance of Rule 109 and its significance in ensuring compliance with Welfare Rules, which are fundamental to the integrity of the industry.

48.  Considering the purposes of penalty, including upholding the integrity of the industry, deterring similar conduct and ensuring compliance with welfare obligations, the Adjudicative Committee has adopted a starting point of a fine of $1,000 per greyhound. This results in a total starting point fine of $8,000.

49.  The Adjudicative Committee considers no uplift in penalty is warranted, as the Respondent’s prior minor breaches, while noted, do not reflect a pattern of conduct relevant to this case.

50.  In recognition of the Respondent’s early admission of the charge, full cooperation with the investigation and compliance following the breach, the Adjudicative Committee finds it appropriate to reduce the penalty by 25%. Resulting in a final fine of $6,000.

COSTS

51.  The Adjudicative Committee has reviewed the submissions of both the Informant and the Respondent in regard to costs. The Informant has advised that legal costs incurred were approximately $8,600 which includes time spent reviewing evidence, attending teleconference for the resulting charges and preparing penalty submissions. The Informant seeks an order for 60% of its costs, amounting to $5,160, which is consistent with its standard practice.

52.  The Respondent has submitted that the costs claimed appear high, noting that much of the preparatory work would have been carried out by the racecourse inspector, thereby reducing time required by legal advisors.

53.  After considering the submissions and exercising its discretion, the Adjudicative Committee finds it appropriate to award a contribution of 50% of the costs sought by the Informant, having regard to all the circumstances of this case.

FINAL RESULT

54.  The Respondent is fined $6,000 and ordered to pay costs as set out below.

55.  The Respondent is ordered to pay costs of $4,300.