Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 14 September 2022 – Howard Scott

Introduction

[1] Mr Howard Scott (the Respondent) in this matter, is currently the holder of several licenses issued by and in accordance with the Constitution of Greyhound Racing NZ (GRNZ).  His Licenses include Owner/Trainer, Litter Master, Breeder and Custodian.

[2] The Respondent has admitted a charge alleging that he failed to comply with the GRNZ Health and Welfare Standards (Welfare Code), in that he failed to provide immediate veterinary care for a sick or injured greyhound as required by the Code.

[3] This penalty hearing was convened at the Manukau Greyhound Racing Stadium on 13 September 2022.  The Respondent was present at the hearing and RIB Racing Investigator Mr Richard Carr appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

[4] The written authority to prosecute was provided by Mr Mike Clement, Chief Executive, RIB on 10 August 2022.

The Charge

[5] Information No A17958 alleges that:

On or about the 27th of June 2022, Mr Howard Scott, being a Licenced Owner/Trainer, Litter Master, Breeder and Custodian, failed to comply with the GRNZ Health and Welfare Standards (Welfare Code). In doing so failed to provide immediate veterinary care for sick or injured greyhound, to relieve pain, suffering or distress.

The Relevant Rules

[6] Rule 62.1 provides:

Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (a) contravenes any of these Rules.

Duties of a person keeping Greyhounds

[7] Rule 85.1 provides:

A Licensed Person shall at all times comply with the Welfare Code. In particular, and without limitation, the Licenced Person shall provide proper care and accommodation for the Greyhounds under his/her control and such accommodation shall be subject to the approval of the Association and be open to inspection by Officials or Stewards or Racecourse Investigators at any time.

[8] Rule 85.2 (d) provides that a Licensed Person must ensure Greyhounds are provided with veterinary attention when necessary….in accordance with the Welfare Code. 

[9] Rule 85.3 provides:

A Licensed Person must exercise such reasonable care and supervision as may be necessary to prevent Greyhounds …. from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. 

[10] Rule 87.5 provides:

The Trainer of a Greyhound is at all times responsible for the welfare and proper care of a Greyhound and shall at all times comply with the Welfare Code. This responsibility cannot be delegated to any other person at any time.

The requisite Health Standards are set out in Clause 8 of the GRNZ Health and Welfare Standards.  Specifically, immediate veterinary care must be provided for sick or injured greyhounds to relieve pain, suffering and distress.

Plea

[11] The Respondent admitted the breach. The charge is therefore deemed to be proved.

Penalty Provisions

[12] The Penalty Rule is r63.1 which provides that:

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

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any one (1) Offence except a luring/baiting Offence under r 86; and/or

(b) Suspension; and/or

(c) Disqualification; and/or

(d) Warning Off.”

Summary of Facts

The salient facts are summarised as follows:

[13] The Respondent is the holder of Owner/Trainer, Litter Master, Breeder and Custodian Licenses issued by New Zealand Greyhound Racing (GRNZ).  He has held an Owner/Trainer Licence according to records disclosed by GRNZ since July 2006.  Although the Respondent has advised that he has held an Owner/Trainers License since 1999.  He obtained his Litter Master Licence in August 2017 and Breeders Licence in August 2018.

[14] The Respondent currently owns eleven greyhounds, including two registered racing dogs and eight greyhound puppies.  The eight puppies were whelped on or around 15 and 16 June 2022 by registered greyhound bitch JETSUN SINGER.

[15] The Respondent lives alone at his Tokoroa address.  On the 27 June 2022, RIB staff undertook an announced Greyhound Audit of his kennels at this address.

[16] The RIB Audit Inspection was conducted by a team including two Stewards, an Auditor, and an RIB appointed veterinary surgeon (Vet).  During the inspection, JETSUN SINGER, a 6 ½ year old whelping bitch, was located inside the bathroom of the dwelling in a whelping box along with a litter of 8 puppies.

[17] JETSUN SINGER is the registered racing name for the whelping bitch with her kennel name being CARRIE.

[18] JETSUN SINGER, along with the puppies was examined by the Vet.  This examination identified two full thickness skin defects on both hip areas and a third on her left lateral stifle. The hip defects [described as pressure ulcers] were 3-4cm in diameter and stifle 2cm in diameter. The Vet has reported that she questioned the Respondent regarding the wounds.  He acknowledged that JETSUN SINGER was chewing her wounds and that he noted they were getting worse. It was noted in the Veterinary Health Report that:

…. Female Breeding Greyhound JETSUN SINGER, – Mr Scott’s only treatment was to administer his own antibiotics to her, and they were clearly ineffective….

…. that by Mr Scott failing to seek veterinary advice or attention despite understanding these were pressure ulcers and were getting worse….

…. This represents serious neglect to JETSUN SINGER’s welfare by letting her suffer ongoing significant pain.

[19] On the Vet’s recommendation, the Respondent sought an immediate assessment from his regular veterinarian clinic, and on assessment, the decision was made in conjunction with the Respondent to euthanise JETSUN SINGER (CARRIE).

[20] A certificate dated 27 June 2022, under the name CARRIE SCOTT, was subsequently released to confirm that JETSUN SINGER, was deceased. The attending Vet had signed off on the certificate stating the decision was made to euthanise CARRIE based on the severity of the wounds.

[21] On the 12 July 2022, the Respondent was interviewed at his place of residence by RIB Investigators.  During the interview he admitted to having noticed JETSUN SINGER, starting to lick her hips on the 20 June 2022, post whelping the litter on 15 and 16 June 2022. When questioned as to whether he thought this was normal behaviour post whelping, he stated “yes and no.” He acknowledges that he did not identify any sores or broken skin at this stage, other than her hips were constantly wet through licking. Two days later on 22 June he acknowledges the change in the appearance to both left and right hips. Stating – “She’d been licking it that much that the skin had come pink. It wasn’t even broken; the skin had a different texture to it, I would say.”

[22] When the Respondent was questioned as to whether he thought to seek veterinarian advice or attention on 22 June 2022 when he noted the skin to be pink in colour. He responded “Yeah, I think that was the day I put her on antibiotics.” Further, he said that the antibiotics that he administered twice daily to the dog were 500mg Amoxicillin tablets that had previously been prescribed to him by his doctor for a chest infection, approximately two months earlier.

[23] The Respondent said that he had thought about taking JETSUN SINGER to his vet on the 22 June, but his vehicle would not start due to mechanical issues.

[24] The Respondent did have access to another vehicle on his property but due to it not having a current Warrant of Fitness did not choose to drive this vehicle into town or to his Vet. He would instead administer the Amoxicillin tablets that had previously been prescribed to him. He confirms at this stage that the lesions had become exposed, and hair gone. The Respondent acknowledged during the interview that – “I made a mistake. I’ll tell you; I made a mistake and that’s fine. It’s not fine but I’m being honest. I made mistake, I should’ve got the right antibiotics from the Vet.” He continued to administer the antibiotics twice daily over the following five days.

[25] Throughout the following five days he continued to administer the antibiotics and wipe the wounds with sterile chlorhexidine wipes and liquid cleaner that he had obtained from his Vet approximately 1½ years prior. Believing that the Amoxicillin Antibiotics were being effective in the treatment of the wounds and “that they weren’t getting a whole lot worse.” When questioned as to whether he contemplated at any stage taking her to the Vet? He stated “no.” When the Respondent was questioned as to whether in retrospect, this was a poor decision? He replied – “yes.” Further questioning; as to whether he had this time again, what would you do in regard to the treatment of her? He stated – “I would’ve taken her to the Vets on the day that I tried to start the vehicle and it wouldn’t start. She would’ve gone then.”

[26] The Respondent denies that JETSUN SINGER, was ever in pain or showed signs of pain, but he acknowledges that his failure to seek veterinarian assistance was a causative factor that contributed to the dog’s welfare and her subsequently being euthanised.

[27] The Respondent has no previous welfare related charges.

Penalty Submissions – Applicant

[28] Prior to the hearing the Applicant, Mr Carr provided the Adjudicative Committee with written penalty submissions, and these were elaborated upon during the hearing. The submissions are summarised below.

[29] The Respondent has admitted the Rule (and Code) breaches and has agreed with the facts of the case as presented by the RIB.

[30] The Applicant pointed out that the breach was detected during an announced Greyhound Audit by the RIB and their Veterinarian.  During the inspection JETSUN SINGER was examined and the extent of her injuries identified (as previously described in the summary of facts).

[31] The Applicant, with reference to the decision RIU v L (2019), reminded the Adjudicative Committee that in proceedings of this nature, the Rules and penalties are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession, public, Industry and those who are to be dealt with within the profession.  And also, that the Adjudicative Committee must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between:

• the public interest
• the interests of the offending member
• the interests of the professional body as a while
• the seriousness of the offending
• any aggravating and mitigating factors.

[32] The Applicant also highlighted for the benefit of the Adjudicative Committee the well-known and accepted sentencing principles relevant to cases of this type.

[33] The Applicant submitted that the importance of animal welfare must be considered in this case, and referred the Adjudicative Committee to the decision RIU v Alford (2021) where it was said that:

If animal welfare standards are not upheld in the industry and when necessary, with condign sanctions by the Judicial Control Authority, the industry cannot maintain a social license in order to continue to operate.

[34] Reference was also made to the decisions RIU V Goldsack (2019) and RIB V McInerney (2022).  In Goldsack the Committee stated “Put simply we do not believe that the penalties sought by the RIU adequately address the public concerns, nor do they serve as an appropriate deterrent for breaches that relate to animal welfare matters. Licence holders and industry participants must be put on notice that sustained breaches relating to welfare matters may attract sanctions that place at risk the ability to participate within the greyhound racing industry.”

[35] The Applicant further submitted that offending of this nature carries with it the significant risk of adversely affecting the interests of the professional racing body. Although cases such as these within New Zealand are rare, the health and wellbeing of greyhounds is of the utmost importance and concern to GRNZ and crucial to the future of greyhound racing. The social licence of the Industry is under challenge.  The Applicant said it was noted in the McInerney decision that Greyhound Racing New Zealand is making a determined effort to address animal welfare issues and the Welfare Code was implemented for this very reason: “GRNZ is looking for harsher penalties in animal welfare cases and the Adjudicative Committee has this in mind.”

Penalty provisions and Precedent cases

[36] The Applicant highlighted the penalty provisions within the Rules and submitted that there appears to be no comparable cases of this nature in NZ that would assist the Adjudicative Committee. The recent case of RIB V Agent and Williams (2022) was raised with reference to the fact that the Adjudicative Committee in that case noted in its written decision that the offending was at the very high end of the scale of seriousness. The condition in which the greyhounds were found was abhorrent. It was inexcusable for them to be kept in such squalid conditions. As an end result, the Adjudicative Committee imposed penalties to both involved in the Training Partnership including a 2-year disqualification and $2,000 fine.

[37] In Goldsack, a case involving a greyhound being left in a car whilst wearing a barking muzzle resulting in heat stroke, and the penalty imposed was a fine of $1800 for the Handler of the greyhound and $750 for the Trainer of the greyhound. It was pointed out that the Appeals Tribunal in that case observed that the penalty sought by the RIU did not adequately address public welfare concerns nor act as an appropriate deterrent.

[38] In McInerney, who was charged under Section 84 of the GRNZ Welfare Standards in relation to racing a greyhound with an injury to its tail. The charge was one of not visually inspecting the greyhound in the 48 hours between its tail being bandaged and being presented to the race, to ensure the greyhound was free of injury prior to racing.  The required standard of inspection under the Welfare Code was not met and the penalty was a $2000 fine. In that case the Adjudicative Committee noted:

“The circumstances of the present case are not the worst one could conceive of. This is not a case of serious neglect but rather one of failing to meet or falling short of the high standard expected as far as the health and safety of Home Bush Hero was concerned.”

[39] The final case referred to by the Applicant was an Australian case, Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) v Taylor (2022).  In that matter Taylor was charged with nine offences in relation to four greyhounds in his care. It was submitted that Charges 4 and 5 in that case, are particularly relevant and comparable to this case with two of his greyhounds being in poor condition and subsequently euthanised. With regards to Charge 4, Taylor is alleged to have failed in his duty of care of the greyhounds by failing to provide at all times veterinary attention when necessary. In Charge 5 – it was alleged Taylor failed to ensure that the greyhounds in his care were not subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. Charge 4: resulted in a $2,500 AUD fine and Charge 5: an 8-year disqualification.

Mitigating factors

[40] The Applicant submitted the following mitigating factors:

• That the Respondent has admitted the breach by pleading guilty when the Information was laid.
• That no additional costs have been incurred by the Adjudicative Committee or RIB.
• That the Respondent has been co-operative throughout the process.

Aggravating factors

The Applicant submitted the following aggravating factors:

[41] The Vet who attended Mr Scott’s address noted in her written Health Report the extent of injuries, namely:

…. Jetsun Singer was found to have two full thickness skin defects on both hip areas and a third on her left lateral stifle. The hip defects [described as pressure ulcers] were 3-4cm in diameter and stifle 2cm in diameter. The underlying muscle and tissue were exposed, and a foul smell indicated significant necrotic (dead) tissue was present. Mr Scott reported Jetsun Singer was chewing her wounds,he noted they were getting worse. Mr Scott’s only treatment was to administer his own antibiotics to her, and they were clearly ineffective. Mr Scott failing to seek veterinary advice or attention despite understanding these were pressure ulcers and were getting worse. This represents serious neglect to Jetsun Singers’ welfare by letting her suffer ongoing significant pain.

[42] The Respondent during his interview admitted to having made errors once he became aware of the two pressure ulcers on JETSUN SINGER. He also accepted that his failure to act was a causative factor in the outcome.

Conclusion

[43] In conclusion it was submitted by the Applicant on behalf of the RIB, that the offending in this case is significant, JETSUN SINGER has suffered serious neglect to her welfare resulting in ongoing significant pain, culminating in her having to be euthanised.

[44] The RIB submits that the offending is serious in nature; it is paramount to the integrity of the sport that the Welfare Code is strictly adhered to. Offending such as this absolutely undermines public perception of the sport and is incongruous with the values of GRNZ and those involved in greyhound racing.

[45] It was submitted that any penalty must not only demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending but also function as a deterrent to others. The reputation of the Industry relies on members following the Rules and breaches such as these, undermine public trust and confidence and bring the Industry into disrepute.  It is imperative to the future success of greyhound racing, and racing in general, that animal welfare standards are maintained to the highest possible level. This is necessary to ensure the ongoing maintenance of a social licence to continue greyhound racing.

[46] The RIB suggests that the penalty starting point of 2 years 6 months disqualification and $2000 fine should be applied in this case.

Penalty Submissions – Respondent

[47] The Respondent provided the Adjudicative Committee with written submissions prior to the hearing which he elaborated upon during the course of the hearing.  These are summarised below.

1. The Respondent firstly offered his thanks to GRNZ, the RIB and veterinarians for their support, understanding and professionalism throughout what he described as “this unfortunate event.”
2. The Respondent said that he has not raced any of his Greyhounds since this incident because “it does not feel right until this process is complete.”
3. The Respondent said that he lives in in Tokoroa, where he grew up. His parents did not have a dog but were surrounded by sporting dogs of all types.  He said he was 20 years old when he got his first dog, a Staffordshire, who had two litters.  He said he has had greyhounds for the past 23 years, with at least one greyhound in his kennels under care during that time.
4. The Respondent said that: “I was quick to admit to those in attendance at the Kennel Audit visit that I had been careless in the action taking in caring for Carrie (Jetsun Flame). I acted quickly on Dr Joan Hessell’s recommendation and took Carrie to South Waikato Veterinary Services on that day, 27 June 2022. it was after extensive discussion with (his Vet) that I made the tough decision to have Carrie euthanised rather than extending her suffering”.
5. The Respondent outlined in some considerable detail the circumstances leading up to and immediately after JETSUN SINGER whelped. He said that for some time she was scratching her bedding and the wooden floor.  He knew that she was not well, there were signs of mucus and as a result took her to his Vet on two occasions seeking treatment, once prior to whelping and again after whelping.  He said that he also spoke to a Vet in Australia who suggested she may have a uterus infection.
6. The Respondent submitted that subsequently, because of that decision, he has devoted his time to hand raise the (8) pups, which he said is a very time consuming 24/7 commitment. He said that he has continued to work with his veterinary clinic to ensure the pups are wormed and well fed.
7. The Respondent said that he is devastated. He fully accepts that he made a mistake and that he should have sought Vet’s attention when it became plainly obvious that JETSUN SINGER needed treatment.  He now realises that, although well intended, it was a mistake to administer the antibiotics that had previously been prescribed to him by his doctor.
8. The Respondent advised that his kennels have previously been inspected with issues having been identified and he has an unblemished record in terms of his care for his dogs.
9. In relation to penalty the Respondent sought an allowance for his cooperation throughout the investigation and his early guilty plea. He also pointed to the fact that he has never had any Animal Welfare charges filed against him.
10. The Respondent referred to the Agent and Williams decision, pointing out that Clause 15 of that decision states that ‘the joint partners no longer hold Registered Licenses’. He submitted that his understanding of that is by relinquishing their Licenses the subsequent disqualification has been applied solely to prevent them from returning to the Industry in the immediate future.
11. The Respondent concluded his submission by referencing the RIB V McInerney and Armstrong cases which he submitted were more relevant to his offending and he pointed out that each resulted in a monetary penalty. In that regard he said that he was financially secure and, in a position, to pay a fine. He also realised that any penalty imposed would need to fit the seriousness of the breach.

Discussion and Reasons for Penalty

[48] The Adjudicative Committee has considered the factual circumstances together with the submissions as to penalty lodged by both the Applicant and Respondent and has also considered the relative similarities and differences with regards to the precedent cases.

[49] In addition, the Adjudicative Committee has seen photographs of the injuries (to JETSUN SINGER) and read the accompanying report prepared by Dr Joan Hessell BVSc, MVM who attended at the Respondent’s premises as a member of the Audit Team.  She examined JETSUN SINGER on site and in her report, she highlights the fact that the Respondent’s actions (or inaction) represents serious neglect to JETSUN SINGER’S welfare by letting her suffer ongoing significant pain.  Dr Hessell’s experience-based observations, as well as her opinion and conclusions, are compelling and carry significant weight in terms of how the Adjudicative Committee has categorised this breach.

[50] Thus, under the circumstances, the Adjudicative Committee has categorised this offence as being at the upper end of the seriousness continuum and has adopted 2 years and 3 months disqualification, as the starting point. In this case we do not believe it is necessary to impose a fine in addition to a period of disqualification.

[51] The Applicant has sought a penalty starting point of 2 years 6 months disqualification and $2000 fine.  The Respondent, on the other hand, has suggested an appropriate penalty ought to be a fine consistent with the McInerney and Armstrong cases. The Adjudicative Committee queried the Applicant as to why the RIB were seeking a $2000 fine in addition to disqualification and was advised that a $2000 fine was imposed in Agent and Williams, and the RIB believe that this offending is more serious than that case because JETSUN SINGER had to be euthanised.  The Adjudicative Committee agrees that both cases represent serious offending, but by virtue of their relative differences they are distinguishable.  The Adjudicative Committee’s interpretation of the Agent and Williams penalty is that the $2000 fine was imposed in addition to disqualification to reflect not only the seriousness of the breach, but also because the Training Partnership had dissolved, and they had relinquished their Training License prior to the hearing. On that basis the combined fine and disqualification was entirely appropriate.

[52] The Applicant referred the Adjudicative Committee to a few cases for comparison purposes with regards to divergence of penalty, but in doing so pointed out that there appears to be no similar cases of this nature in New Zealand.  The Adjudicative Committee agrees with that assertion.  Therefore, the 2 years and 3 months starting point has been determined on a fact-dependent basis and takes into account the case specific aggravating factors.

[53] The Adjudicative Committee has also had due regard for the fact that the starting point disqualification period is slightly more than end point result in the Agent and Williams case, but it is significantly more than the other New Zealand cases referred to by the RIB and Applicant.  It is however, substantially less than the GRV case relating to Taylor.

[54] The penalty in the Taylor case was based on the application of the Rules and penalty regime that operate and apply within Victoria (i.e., The GRV Penalty Guidelines – Greyhound Welfare 2018) which (a) tend to be more prescriptive than NZ penalties; and (b) provide minimum and maximum penalties based on a graduated 1 to 5 offence category model – 1 being at the lower end and 5 being at the high end of seriousness.  According to the GRV model a breach of this nature provides for a minimum penalty of 2-year disqualification and $3000 fine per affected greyhound; and a maximum penalty of 10-year disqualification and $3000 fine per affected greyhound. Furthermore, the GRV penalty provisions, in circumstances where there has been a failure to provide appropriate veterinary attention leading to subsequent death (or euthanasia deemed necessary by a veterinary surgeon) for a minimum 5-year disqualification and maximum life disqualification.  The main point of difference between NZ penalty provisions and GRV being that NZ penalties are not so prescriptive, and disqualification periods are considered on a fact dependent basis.

[55] Therefore, when considering the 8-year disqualification penalty in Taylor, the Adjudicative Committee must take care to avoid simply adopting the GRV penalty as a benchmark or guide because, as highlighted above, there are important relative differences between the GRV and GRNZ penalty regimes to be considered.

[56] As already mentioned, the seriousness of the breach is at the higher end, and so is the Respondent’s level of culpability.  But, in terms of both culpability and seriousness, there are clearly some fact-dependent differences between the circumstances of this case and the others referred for the consideration of the Adjudicative Committee.  The Respondent has considerable experience, 20 plus years, owning, training, breeding, and caring for his greyhounds.  This is his third greyhound litter, and he advises that he has also previously bred from other dogs.  On that basis he knew, or ought to have known, that his greyhound was exhibiting symptoms or behaviour that required proper veterinarian treatment. But rather than seeking the help of a professional veterinarian, he chose to administer antibiotics that had earlier been prescribed to him via his GP.  No doubt he may have (mistakenly) believed that he was doing the right thing, but he did so without due regard for the risks or consequences that followed. Moreover, his actions (or inaction) were totally at odds with the licensing obligations and requirements that are set out in the Rules and Code.

[57] In recent years Greyhound Racing has been at the forefront of animal welfare concerns raised by various interest groups.  These concerns have led to some well documented inquiries/reports (i.e., “The Robertson Review/Report”) and some well publicised criticism of Greyhound Racing.  In response GRNZ and the RIB have been proactively engaged, through education, enforcement, and implementation of various quality assurance checks to improve animal welfare outcomes (refer GRNZ Welfare Report Q1 2022).  It was because of an ‘announced’ visit by the RIB Team that this breach was detected.  It is therefore of concern that armed with knowledge of the impending visit, the Respondent did not take steps to seek the intervention of a Vet.  His actions not only reflect poorly on his management of the welfare of his greyhounds, but also, his actions or inaction has unnecessarily brought the Industry into disrepute at a time when considerable effort is being made to make progress.

[58] The aggravating factors have been considered and in-built into the starting point.  However, in consideration of the mitigating factors a 3-month reduction is applied. Those factors include the Respondent’s admission of the breach, his good record, cooperation, and genuine remorse.

[59] The loss of the Respondent’s greyhound has taken somewhat of a toll on him, his remorse is sincere, and he fully accepts that he made a gross error of judgment in not seeking appropriate veterinary intervention.  He also fully understands that his actions may attract adverse publicity to a sport that he says he has a deep passion and support for.

Penalty

[60] Accordingly, after applying the 3-month reduction to the starting point, we impose a 2-year disqualification.

[61] A discussion followed the penalty announcement with regards to the impact the disqualification will have on the dogs that are currently under the Respondent’s care.  As a result, it was determined that the Respondent should have sufficient time to make new arrangements for the kennelling and/or training/care of his greyhound(s), also it will enable the pups to be ear-branded and micro chipped.  Therefore, the disqualification comes into effect 21 days from the publication date of this decision.

[62] For the sake of clarity pursuant to the definition section of the Regulations of the NZ Greyhound Racing Rules, “to disqualify“ in relation to any person means the loss of all rights, licenses or registrations under the Rules and disqualification shall have a corresponding meaning.  In addition, in accordance with Rule 75.8 (c) Registration shall not be issued to anyone who is undergoing a period of disqualification imposed under the Rules.

Costs

[63] The RIB has not sought costs and there is no order for Adjudicative Committee costs.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM

In its decision the Adjudicative Committee determined that:

The Respondent should have sufficient time to make new arrangements for the kennelling and/or training/care of his greyhound(s), also it will enable the pups to be ear-branded and micro chipped.  Therefore, the disqualification comes into effect 21 days from the publication date of this decision.

The 21-day period ends on 6 October 2022.

On 20 September 2022 the Respondent sought a 7-to-10-day extension to the commencement date of his disqualification.  This was sought on the basis that plans have now been put in place to complete all arrangements for the disposal/rehoming of his puppies and to enable all inoculations etc. to take effect.  His request is supported by a letter from his vet.

Having considered the request, the Adjudicative Committee approves this application for an extension, as it is deemed to be in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare.

Accordingly, a 10-day extension is approved, and Mr Scott is disqualified for a period of 2 years, commencing on 16 October 2022.

G R Jones – Dated 20 September 2022