Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 15 May 2023 – Robbie Patterson

1.  The Informant charged Class A Licensed Trainer Mr R Patterson with a breach of Rule 802(1)(a) of the NZTR Rules in that he failed to comply with a direction of a Stipendiary Steward to attend the Stewards’ Room at the Cambridge Jockey Club race meeting at Te Rapa on 29 April 2023.

2.  Mr Patterson has admitted the charge.  He advised that he did not wish to be present at the hearing of the Information and has made submissions relevant to penalty.  He subsequently attended via telephone.

3.  Rule 802(1)(a) provides that a person commits a breach of the NZTR Rules of Racing who:

(a) “acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with…. any direction… made or imposed under these Rules”.  The General Penalty Provisions in Rule 803(1) apply.

Facts:

4.  Mr Patterson is the Licensed Class “A” Trainer of the horse “THE FEARLESS ONE” which was engaged to compete in Race 6, at the Cambridge Jockey Club meeting at Te Rapa on 29 April 2023, the “Cambridge Equine Hospital 1400”.  The race was run at 3.28pm.  The horse had been presented to race with a tongue tie, which gear had not been notified by the Trainer.

5.  Mr Patterson was advised by Mr A Dooley, Stipendiary Steward, at 4.17pm that he was required to attend at the Stewards’ Room, adjacent to the Weighing Room, to offer any explanation and told that if he was then charged with a  breach under the Minor Infringement System, as provided in the Rules, he had to sign documents at the time.

6.  Mr Patterson failed to attend as required.  He was again telephoned at 4.25pm but this was met with an “answerphone” message.  He was still on racecourse premises.  The last race (9) took place at 4.43pm.  By 5.15pm Mr Patterson had still not attended the Stewards’ Room as required.

7.  The Minor Infringement procedure, if it was to be invoked for this particular breach, requires under Rule 926(1)(a) and (b), the Trainer to admit in writing to such a breach of the Rule as alleged and to accept the prescribed penalty, (in this case a fine of $50).  Once this is done, the Chair of the Adjudicative Committee must also sign the same infringement notice.  Without this being done, there can be no enforceable notice.

8.  Mr Patterson’s refusal to attend at the Stewards’ Room as required (when he could then either have admitted the breach, or challenged the process) resulted in the Stipendiary Stewards and Adjudicative Committee being detained for some time after the last race, and the Minor Infringement procedure was being thwarted.

9.  When later interviewed on 6 May 2023, Mr Patterson said that he did not wish to come to the room “over such a trivial thing” and he had wished to commence a longish trip home.

10.  Subsequently on 6 May 2023, he completed the simple procedure of endorsing the Minor Infringement Notice to admit the breach, and accepted the fixed penalty of $50.

Penalty:

11.  There is no “starting point” for a breach of this Rule.  The offence under the Rule may be, at one end of the scale serious, or of a lesser nature, and the degree of severity will be fact specific.  This breach was towards the low end of the scale.  The Informant referred to two previous cases for similar breaches of this Rule; for failing to comply with instructions of a Stipendiary Steward, namely A Ihaka (2013), and G Laurensen (2011), where fines of $400 and $600 were imposed.  A fine of $400 – $500 was submitted as appropriate in this case.

12.  Mr Patterson contended that a fine of $500 was excessive and unwarranted.  He said he was not familiar with the Minor Infringement procedure, and was apologetic for his “mistake”.

13.  The actions of Mr Patterson might have been done in ignorance of the Rules and his duty to respond to the direction of the Steward.  They might also have been through “pigheadedness”.   But these were deliberate and in breach of what he must, as a Licensed Trainer have known, was his obligation under the Rules.  If he thought, as he said, the gear issue was “trivial” so he did not have to obey the directive, he was misguided and acted in disobedience of his duty.

14.  All Licensees have a duty to comply with the directions of Stipendiary Stewards and other Officials so as to enable the orderly, efficient management and disposal of raceday issues.  Otherwise a race meeting could not be properly policed and tasks of Stewards (for example) fulfilled.  A Licensed Trainer has the privilege of participation in the Industry by nature of his/her Licence and is required to be familiar with the obligations imposed upon them by the Rules.  It is not open to them to decide what obligations suit them, or what directions of Stewards they may choose to meet.  Naturally, the events escalated from a minor matter of “non notified gear”, but it had to be dealt with and Mr Patterson’s default thwarted this at the time.  The Adjudicative Committee considers that a modest penalty only is required because of Mr Patterson’s good record, his ready admission of the failure to comply as required, and his present professional approach.

15.  As explained to Mr Patterson, whilst a fine imposes a penalty on the offence the predominant factor in this, and other cases where Stewards’ directives are ignored, is to deter similar actions by Licensees.  All must know of their obligations where directions are made by Stewards, and defiance of the Rule and their duty to comply may result in stern penalties.  Otherwise the proper and effective administration, management and policing of raceday matters will be seriously comprised.  The Trainer is able to participate in raceday events because of the privilege granted by his/her Licence and the proper management of raceday matters by Stewards cannot be hindered at the choice of the Licensee.

16.  The Adjudicative Committee, having taken into account the relevant mitigating factors, fixes the fine to be paid by Mr Patterson at $300.

17.  There is no order as to costs.