Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 8 May 2023 – Peter Heterick

ID: RIB20876

Peter Heterick - Trainer

Ms Philippa Kinsey – Stipendiary Steward

Hon J W Gendall KC (Chair), Mr B Mainwaring

Persons Present:
Nil - on the papers

Information Number:

Decision Type:
Non-race Related Charge

Failed to comply with direction of GRNZ Rule 9 - Definitions of a Stand Down Period

156(w) - Other - General Offence


Animal Name:


Hearing Date:

Hearing Location:
Te Rapa

Outcome: Proved

Penalty: Trainer Peter Heterick is fined $450

1. Mr Heterick is a Licensed Public Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association (GRNZ).

2. The Adjudicative Committee heard and determined, by consent on the papers, on the outcome of a charge presented by the Informant that Mr Heterick committed an offence under GRNZ Rule 156(w) by failing to comply with the direction of GRNZ (Rule 9), in that he allowed his Greyhound “FIREY SUZIE” to compete in a satisfactory trial on 30 March 2023 when under a stand down period of 10 days under GRNZ Rule 76(4).

3. Mr Heterick admitted the charge and the Adjudicative Committee proceeded on the papers to fix a penalty under Rule 174.

4.  A “stand down period” is defined in Rule 9 as the period of time a Greyhound is ordered not to compete in an Event or satisfactory trial.

5.  The essential facts are that after “FIERY SUZIE” was scratched from competing at the Waikato GRC meeting on 23 March 2023, it had a stand down period of 10 days imposed under Rule 76(4).  As a consequence, it would not compete in a Race or “satisfactory trial” until that period expired.  Mr Heterick on 29 March 2023, nominated the Greyhound to compete as a “fill in” in a satisfactory trial at the Waikato GRC meeting at Manakau on 30 March 2023 and “FIERY SUZIE” competed and finished 3rd.  This was 7 days after being made subject to the 10 day stand down period.

6.  When later questioned as to this offence under the Rules, Mr Heterick admitted the breach, saying that he had simply “made a mistake”.


7.  The general penalty provision Rule 174(1) applies, which provides for a variety of penalties ranging from suspension or disqualification, reprimand, fine not exceeding $10,000.  The Informant contends that a fine in the vicinity of $500 is appropriate.  It refers to 3 principles of “sentencing” that may be applicable, namely punishment, deterrence of other Licensees, and “disapproval” of the Authority.

8.  Mr Heterick has not made any formal submissions as to penalty.  But he has been fully co-operative with the Informant, accepted responsibility for his breach of the Rule and has no previous history of breaches of this Rule.

9.  The Adjudicative Committee accepts that a fine only is the required sanction.  Whilst it will, naturally, impose a form of punishment on the Respondent, its primary objective in the present circumstances, is to deter other Trainers from ignoring the Stand Down Period Rule – whether mistakenly (as here) or deliberately.  Licensed Trainers know of the Rule and must exercise total care to ensure it is obeyed.  Other Trainers who may neglect obligations under the Rule have to be aware that penalties for a breach will follow.  That is, a fine is aimed at deterring others.

10.  From a starting point of $500, the Adjudicative Committee allows a fair discount for Mr Heterick’s good record, his co-operation, and acceptance of his actions (although any attempt to defend would have been futile).  The Adjudicative Committee fixes the discount at 10%.

Accordingly, Mr Heterick is fined $450.  There is no order as to costs.

Decision Date: 06/05/2023

Publish Date: 09/05/2023