Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 21 December 2024 – Jake Bell

ID: RIB49440

Respondent(s):
Jake Bell - Other (Unlicensed Person)

Applicant:
Ms G Murrow - RIB Investigator

Adjudicators:
Mr G Jones and Mr B Mainwaring

Persons Present:
Ms Murrow, Witnesses and support person

Information Number:
A16871 , A16873

Decision Type:
Non-race Related Charge

Charge:
Misconduct

Rule(s):
156(f)(ii) - Misconduct

Plea:
Not Admitted

Animal Name:
N/A

Code:
Greyhound

Hearing Date:
09/12/2024

Hearing Location:
Palmerston North

Outcome: Proved

Penalty: Jake Bell is disqualified for 18 months

INTRODUCTION

[1] Following an investigation by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB), two Information’s were filed, pursuant to Rule 156(f)(ii) alleging Misconduct by Mr Jake Bell (hereafter referred to as “the Respondent”).

[2] The Respondent was previously employed by GRNZ. He commenced employment in December 2021 at the Palmerston North Greyhound Racing Club as the Track Curator and from May 2023 until his employment was terminated on 12 September 2024, he was the GRNZ National Track Manager.

[3] The Respondent was also licensed by GRNZ as a Starter and Lure Driver. He relinquished those Licences on 26 September 2024.

THE CHARGES

[4] Charge 1 Information No A16871alleged:

Between the 2 and 9 August 2024, Jake Bell, an official employed by GRNZ and a licensed greyhound handler, did act improperly by sending photographic images of his genitalia to a (details redacted) on the social media application Snapchat.

Note: date originally between 3 and 6 August 2024, but amended at commencement of the hearing to between 2 and 9 August 2024.

[5] Charge 2 Information No A16873 alleged:

On or about the 26 March 2024, Jake Bell, an official employed by GRNZ and a licensed greyhound handler, did act improperly by sending a photographic image of his genitalia to a GRNZ Licensed person on the social media application Snap Chat.

The Plea

[6] Prior to the hearing, the Respondent advised the Adjudicative Committee that he admitted Charge 1, but disputed some of the alleged facts and he denied Charge 2.

[7] The charges were heard on the basis that although Information 1 was admitted, it be dealt with by way of a ‘formal proof / ‘disputed facts’ hearing.  Information 2 was dealt with as a ‘denied’/ ‘defended’ charge.

[8] The Respondent advised the Adjudicative Committee prior to the hearing, that he did not wish to attend.

DECISION AND PENALTY

[9] A hearing was convened at the Awapuni Racecourse on 9 December 2024, during which time, evidence was heard from witnesses in relation to both charges.  RIB Investigator Ms G Murrow, prosecuted the case on behalf of the RIB.  As he had previously indicated, the Respondent did not appear at the hearing.

[10] After receiving and considering the evidence and submissions presented by the RIB and written submissions filed by the Respondent, the Adjudicative Committee found both charges proven.  By way of File Minute dated 9 December 2024, the Informant and Respondent were invited to file penalty submissions no later than 16 December 2024. In response, they both filed submissions.

[11] After consideration of the submissions, the Adjudicative Committee imposed an outcome penalty of 18 months disqualification.  Detailed reasons for this Penalty Decision are outlined in the paragraphs that follow.

THE RELEVANT RULES

[12] Rule 156 sets out General Offences.  R156 (f)(ii) provides that an offence is committed if a person (including an official):

(f) has, in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing, done something, or omitted to do something, which, in the opinion of GRNZ or the Racing Integrity Board:

(ii) constitutes misconduct or is negligent or improper.

PENALTY PROVISIONS

[13] Rule 174 sets out the Penalty Provisions:

(1) An Adjudicative Committee may as it thinks fit penalise a person found guilty of an offence under the Rules by any one or a combination of the following penalties:

(a) a reprimand (sometimes known as a warning or caution);

(b) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one offence except a luring and baiting offence under rule 159.

(c) suspension.

(d) disqualification.

(e) cancellation of a registration or a licence, or in the case of a Club, its affiliation to GRNZ; or

(f) warning off.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

[14] A pre-hearing teleconference took place at 1.30pm on Friday 8 November 2024. Attendees included RIB Investigator Ms Murrow and the Respondent. Matters discussed included:

(a)  Confirmation of plea, as per paragraph [6].

(b)  Identification and clarification of the issues.

(c)  Disclosure requirements, including dates for exchange of witness statements.

(d)  Timetabling the date and venue of the substantive hearing, as well as identification of any special needs for the hearing.

Note:

[15] After considering the nature of the charges; the age(s) and circumstances of the two Complainants, the Adjudicative Committee determined that there is no public interest in them being named in this Written Decision. On that basis, the Complainant with regards to Charge 1, is hereafter referred to as Complainant 1 and the Complainant with regards to Charge 2, is referred to as Complainant 2.

[16] The Adjudicative Committee also considered its jurisdiction to hear the charges and concluded that although the Respondent’s employment with GRNZ has been terminated and he has relinquished his Licenses, at the time of his offending, he was employed as an ‘Official’ by GRNZ and he was a Licensed Person, therefore his behaviour is captured by the Rules.  In addition, the Adjudicative Committee also took into account the wide scope of the powers afforded to the RIB by Rule LR19B (1)(2).  This Rule sets out and confirms the authority and powers of the RIB to investigate matters of this nature.  The definition of a Licensed Person and Official is set out in section 9 of the Rules.

THE CASE FOR THE INFORMANT

[17] The Informant’s case was supported by the evidence from four witnesses.  Namely:

(a)  Mr Daniel Amies, Track Manager Awapuni.

(b)  Mr Edward Rennell, CEO GRNZ.

(c)  Complainant 1 – refers to Charge 1.

(d)  Complainant 2 – refers to Charge 2.

EVIDENCE

Witness Mr Amies

[18] The Adjudicative Committee accepted the written evidential statement of Mr Amies, which was read into the record. Although Mr Amies’ evidence is in part hearsay, the Adjudicative Committee deems it to be relevant and therefore admissible.  It is also evidence of recent complaint, which tends to confirm and corroborate the evidence given by Complainant 1 about the Respondent’s behaviour.

[19] His evidence was that on 3 August 2024, Complainant 1 raised concerns with him about unsolicited contact by the Respondent via Snapchat.  It is relevant that the Complainant 1 contacted this witness to raise her concerns and seek his advice the day after the Respondent commenced messaging her.

[20] The essence of his evidence was that Complainant 1 told him that the Respondent had recently added her in his Snapchat, started being friendly, but then it quickly became rather rude.  Complainant 1 told Mr Amies that the Respondent had sent her a TikTok message …”It was about having sex in a garden or something that’s what he wanted to do with her”.  She also told Mr Amies about some messages that he’d sent like wanted her to sit on him in explicit ways and that he kept asking her to go to his hotel room in Auckland”.

[21] Mr Amies stated that Complainant 1 was very concerned and didn’t know what to do.  He said that he advised her to report the matter to the RIB.  He added that Complainant 1, when advising him of this was “really, really shocked and lost and she couldn’t believe what had happened”. He advised that he had been shown a message and that he thought the message “was crude and quite sick”.

Witness Mr Rennell

[22] The Adjudicative Committee accepted the written evidential statement of GRNZ CEO Mr Edward Rennell.  This was read into the record.

[23]  Mr Rennell confirmed that the Respondent is a former employee of GRNZ.  He said that he was first employed by Palmerston North in December 2021 and then from 22 May 2023 until 12 September 2024, he was the National Track Manager.  His employment with GRNZ ended on 12 September 2024.

[24] Mr Rennell also confirmed that the Respondent was required to travel to GRNZ Tracks throughout New Zealand and that he stayed in hotel/motel accommodation.  GRNZ business records confirm dates and places which correspond with and corroborate matters raised by the two Complainants.

Witness Complainant 1 – Charge 1

[25] Complainant 1 provided detailed evidence with regards to Charge 1.  She is a Licenced Person (GRNZ Handler) and has other racing related employment.  She completed a thorough evidential statement, which was read by her into the record.  She was supported at the hearing by a Senior Greyhound Trainer.  She also answered a number of questions from Ms Murrow and the Adjudicative Committee.

[26] Complainant 1 stated that she has been involved in the Greyhound Racing Industry since her early teens.  She said that she never really got on with the Respondent and therefore “thought it was a bit weird when he sent me a friend request on snapchat”. She spoke of some conflict that had occurred between herself, and the Respondent some 5 or 6 years previously and therefore was “quite shocked” when he sent her the snapchat request.  She said that she did not immediately respond to the request and accepted it because she thought he needed to tell her something.

[27] Complainant 1 stated that on the night of 2 August 2024, ‘pictures’ were sent to her by the Respondent.  She said that at first, did not think much about it, but he kept trying to message her.  She said, “I thought it was weird that he changed the chat settings to delete after send because usually the messages can stay for 24 hours but he changed the settings for the messages to delete straight after they were read”.

[28] Complainant 1 said the nature and content of the messages changed.  He sent her a message which made her feel uncomfortable:

…“I’ve been peeving on you for a while, I was wanting to know if you were keen”.

…“I can fly you up to my hotel in Auckland if you are keen.

She described other messaging of a sexual nature, and the messaging continued with reference to the fact they had recently both been on the same flight and he made some other lewd comments and suggestions.  She said that he then started sending further inappropriate Tik Tok and snapchat messages, including “a puppet singing about having sex with someone in a park”, which she said made her feel uncomfortable. Complainant 1 also stated that there were some messages where he told her “she wasn’t to tell anyone” and another that “he would follow me home”.

[29] Complainant 1 stated that he sent her 60 to 70 picture of his genitals, along with other suggestive rude comments of a sexual nature.

EXH – Photographs

Complainant 1 took a screenshot of some of the pictures depicting his genitals – 5 which were produced as an Exhibit – and these corroborated her evidence on this point.

[30] After seeking advice from the witness Mr Amies (the following day), Complainant 1 reported the Respondent’s behaviour to an RIB Steward and then to an RIB Investigator.  Mr Amies’ evidence is important because, despite being a particularly embarrassing situation for Complainant 1, she sought his advice as to how to handle the situation.  These are not the actions of someone who could be said to be complicit in the activities of the Respondent. She concluded her evidence by confirming that the Respondent’s contact with her has left her feeling uncomfortable.  She added that “I never done anything to encourage or respond to the photos and I was disgusted that he sent me a picture of his genitals.  I have never sent him pictures of myself or my body”.

Witness Complainant 2 – Charge 2

[31] Complainant 2 gave detailed evidence with regards to Charge 2.  She completed a detailed evidential statement which was read into the record.  She is a young Licenced Person who has been involved in the Greyhound Industry since her early teens.

[32] Complainant 2 stated that she got to know the Respondent through the Greyhound Industry about 2 years ago, when she was in her mid-teens and described him as a  “sort of a mate”.  The friendship was generally in the context of greyhound related matters and initially quite cordial. She referred to an incident about a year previously, when one of her dogs broke down and its muzzle got caught and the Respondent made the comment…along the lines “that’s why women handlers shouldn’t be at the races”.

[33]  She stated that he messaged her, about 2 years ago, on Snapchat –“this was unexpected and out of the blue and I accepted”.  She said initially the snapchats were friendly and nothing that made her feel uncomfortable.  She said that from the beginning of this year, “he just laid it on thick and never looked back”. The witness indicating the nature, content and volume of messages escalated.

[34] She referred to an incident when she was at a race meeting where the Respondent was also at that race meeting in his capacity of National Track Manager.  He sent further messages to her.  She said that in one message, he “went out of his way to tell me that they were getting a divorce, and they we’re finished”.  ‘They’ meaning the Respondent and his wife.  She further stated that on one other occasion, “he said to me that he was going to follow me out to the boxes every time I was handling …”  She said that he also made lewd comments of a sexual natureShe said that he messaged her that night and said that she should come back to his motel room.  She queried the Respondent as to whether he was still married and he said that “no, no we’re still sorting it out”.

[35] Complainant 2 stated she later spoke to her mum about what the Respondent had done.

[36] She stated that he sent her a photo of his genitals via Snapchat.  From the photo, she identified that he was lying on a bed in a hotel room. She said she did not respond, but he did send a follow-up stating message “Oh you not like it”.  He also sent a TV Trackside screenshot of Complainant 2 leading a dog with a comment “you need to smile more”.

[37] In late July and early August, the Respondent sent some videos via Tik Tok.  Two were of a sexual nature.   On 11 August 2024, Complainant 2 said that she raised her concerns with a friend, who sent a message to the Respondent purporting to be from her, telling him to desist.

[38] Complainant 2 concluded her evidence by stating that she has never done anything to encourage or respond to the photos and that she was disgusted that he sent a picture of his genitals.  She said that she has never sent him pictures of herself or her body.

THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[39] With regards to Charge 1, the Respondent indicated pre-hearing, that he admitted the charge but disputed the facts.  He did not reveal which parts of the evidence he disputed.

[40] With regards to Charge 2, the Respondent indicated at the pre-hearing, that this charge was denied.

[41] In an email to the RIB dated 29 October 2024, the Respondent set out his position in relation to the charges.  In essence, he said that he admitted sending photos to Complainant 1, but denied a number of the facts.  Part of his concerns were that he alleged Complainant 1 had sent a video of herself in the shower, to him.  He said that he had handed in his Licences and no longer wished to have any part in the Greyhound Industry.  He added that he believed that he had been “set up”.  He made further comments about being unable to access snap chat records (messages and photos) from the USA because I have no proof that it didn’t happen the way the Complainants allege.

[42] The day before the hearing, Sunday 8 December 2024, the Respondent sent a further convoluted email concerning the charges for the information of the Adjudicative Committee.  The email was addressed ‘to whom it may concern’ – signed off Jake Bell, with no explanation as to the purpose of the contents.  On that basis, the Adjudicative Committee assumes it is intended as a further submission by the Respondent, for the Adjudicative Committee to take into account when weighing up the evidence.  The issues raised by the Respondent are summarised below.

  • Mr Bell said that with regards to Complainant 1, I admit to sending photos to her but not without her sending me photos of herself and a video of her in the shower.  He further stated that he did not agree with what she said in her statement … we both flirted …  and she told me she had split up from her partner and said that … sent 5 – 10 pics each to each other I deny all the other stuff in her statement.
  • Mr Bell said that with regards to Complainant 2, he denies everything and that he has never sent her any photos but accepts that they messaged each other.  He also said that the only reason she made her complaint against him is because she was put up to it by crowd of people in the South Island whom he previously had a dispute with.

[43]  The remainder of the Respondent’s submission is not repeated, as it contained information deemed by the Adjudicative Committee to be of little relevance.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS – FOR THE RIB

[44] In closing the case for the RIB, Ms Murrow made the following submissions:

(a)  At the time of the offences, Mr Bell was a Licensed Person.

(b)  The two young Complainants provided strikingly similar evidence concerning Mr Bell’s behaviour i.e. sending photographs of his genitals. The statements of each Complainant tends to corroborate each other i.e. messages/photographs sent from hotel/motel rooms, where Mr Bell was staying on GRNZ business.

(c)  There can be no suggestion that the two Complainants were complicit (or colluded) in coming forward and complaining to the RIB.

(d)  Mr Bell’s behaviour is improper – as per the definition of “improper” in the Oxford Dictionary. His behaviour does not conform to what is accepted as right…and it is not in accordance with accepted standards.

(e)  Sending unsolicited images of his genitals to young females is not proper, particularly so given he is aged 35 years.

(f)  Mr Bell was not only a fellow license holder but also a GRNZ National Manager, a position of responsibility creating an imbalance of power between himself and the two Complainants.

(g)  Mr Bell has admitted sending images to Complainant 1.

(h)  Both Complainants have denied engaging in any behaviour that may have encouraged Mr Bell to behave as he did.

(i)  The Complainants would not have complained knowing that Mr Bell may potentially have images sent to him by either one of them.

(j)  Complainant 1 reported her concerns about Mr Bell’s behaviour within 24 hours of having received the pictures.

(k)  In conclusion, the RIB submits that the evidence presented meets all of the elements of the charges and therefore the Adjudicative Committee should find them both proven.

THE DECISION AND REASONS SUMMARISED

[45] The two charges require a finding that on the dates concerned, the Respondent Mr Bell, whilst he was employed as an ‘Official’ by GRNZ and a Licensed Person, he acted improperly by sending photographic images of his genitals to the two Complainants via Snapchat.

(i) Evidence was provided by the Informant, that at the time of the alleged offences, Mr Bell was employed by GRNZ and that he was a Licensed Person.  This ingredient of the charge is satisfied.

(ii) Evidence was also provided that the Respondent sent images of his genitals via Snapchat to the two Complainants.  This ingredient of the charge is satisfied.

(iii) It is a matter for the Adjudicative Committee to determine whether the Respondent’s conduct is improper. In its opinion, his conduct fell well below the accepted standard expected of an Official employed by GRNZ, and further, his behaviour in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, is unbecoming of a Licensed Person.  Accordingly, this ingredient of the charge is satisfied.

[46] Therefore, following deliberation, which included an evaluation of the evidence provided by the witnesses, the photographs, the submissions made by the RIB Investigator, Ms Murrow and the email submissions provided by the Respondent, the Adjudicative Committee found both charges proved to the requisite standard i.e. Charges 1 and 2 established on the balance of probabilities.  The weight of evidence, by a wide margin, has enabled the Adjudicative Committee to reach this decision.

[47] Despite electing to not appear at the hearing, the Respondent provided written submissions.  These are set out in paragraph 42. The evidence of the witnesses is essentially unchallenged. Ultimately, the Adjudicative Committee accepted the evidence of the two Complainants which, in the absence of any further information from the Respondent, was preferred as being the more reliable.

Charge 1

[48] In terms of Charge 1, the Respondent admitted the charge, but disputed the facts.  It was on that basis, that evidence was heard from the Complainant 1.  The Adjudicative Committee determined her detailed evidence to be cogent and therefore credible.

[49] Corroboration was provided by the witnesses Mr Amies and Mr Rennell.  Mr Amies provided evidence of recent complaint, namely that Complainant 1 spoke to him about her concerns within 24 hours of receiving the first communication from the Respondent.  Mr Rennell confirmed  the Respondent’s employment status with GRNZ at the time of his offending.  He also confirmed that the Respondent was staying at an Auckland Hotel, from 1 to 7 August 2024, whilst on GRNZ business.

[50] Whereas Complainant 1 stated that the Respondent sent her 60 to 70 picture of his genitals, the only concession that the Respondent makes in his written email submission of 8 December 2024 is that “we probably sent 5-10 pics to each other” – but he makes no mention of sending a picture of his genitals.  Limited weight is given to the Respondent’s submission on this point, as there has been no opportunity to question him on his assertion versus that of Complainant 1.

[51] In addition, when asked at the hearing whether she had sent any photographs or videos of herself that would or could have led him to believe he could reciprocate, Complainant 1 emphatically said that she did nothing to encourage him.  She further stated that she did not send him a video of herself in the shower, as alleged by the Respondent.

[52] The Respondent has not raised a credible defence to this charge.

Charge 2

[53] Charge 2 was denied by the Respondent.  The Adjudicative Committee heard evidence from the Complainant 2 . Her detailed evidence is convincing and therefore credible.

[54] Mr Rennell has provided corroborating GRNZ business records that support dates mentioned by Complainant 2.

[55] Whereas Complainant 2 makes specific reference in her evidence to the Respondent sending her a picture of his genitals, and that she has never sent him pictures of herself or her body, the Respondent makes no reference at all to these allegations – other than in his email submission of 8 December 2024, he said that the only reason she made her complaint against him, is because she was put up to it by crowd of people in the South Island, whom he previously had a dispute with.

[56] The Respondent has not raised a credible defence to this charge.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

[57]  After delivering its verbal decision in relation to the two charges, the Adjudicative Committee promulgated a File Note No.3, inviting the Informant and Respondent to submit penalty submissions, no later than 16 December 2024.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS SUMMARISED – INFORMANT

[58] Ms Murrow submitted detailed written penalty submissions on behalf of the RIB.  They are summarised as follows.

[59] Background information including a summary of the Respondent’s offending was outlined.

[60] Reference was made to the well-known sentencing principles which are outlined as follows:

(a)  Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.

(b)  In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.

(c)  A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Committee for the type of offending in question.

(d)  The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

Comparable Cases

[61] There are no comparable cases for this type of offending. The case of RIU V Breslin 2017 is referred to.  In that case, the RIU sought a penalty of 9 to 12 months disqualification for a single charge of indecent assault, in which Mr Breslin touched a young lady on her buttocks and upper thigh. The factors considered by the Committee in that case are outlined. The resulting penalty was a fine of $8,000. This penalty was unsuccessfully appealed by the RIU. The committee advised when contemplating a disqualification and or suspension they considered the following:

“A key factor in our determining that such a penalty is not appropriate in this case is the fact that Mr Breslin did not previously know the complainant and thus this breach of the Rules is not a breach of trust involving an industry participant. Were there a relationship between complainant and respondent that was closely connected to racing, or if the breach had the hallmarks of an employer/employee power imbalance, we would view the matter very differently.

Mitigating Factors

[62] The RIB submits that there are no mitigating factors.

Aggravating Factors

[63] The RIB submits the following aggravating factors:

(a)  Mr Bell was not only a long standing GRNZ licence holder but an employee of GRNZ, he was well aware of the expectation to maintain a high standard of behaviour.

(b)  Both complainants were fellow GRNZ licence holders, known to Mr Bell. The relationships were purely formed through racing and involved a clear breach of trust. Both girls accepted Mr Bell’s friend request purely due to the GRNZ Racing connection.

(c)  There was also a clear power imbalance as Mr Bell held a position of respect within the industry and used this to initiate communication with the complainants. He was in fact working on GRNZ business at the time of his offending and his work provided him with a clear opportunity, one which he exploited.

(d)  Attention also needs to be directed to the age difference between both complainants and Mr Bell. Both expressed distress at the behaviour and one advised she felt ill-equipped with how to respond which led to her seeking help by reporting the matter.

(e)  Mr Bell’s behaviour was not an isolated incident but a pattern of behaviour in which both victims suffered from a strikingly similar Modis operandi.

(f)  Mr Bell has denied, and minimised his offending, he has taken no responsibility nor shown any insight or remorse.

(g)  A period of disqualification would not result in the loss of livelihood as Mr Bell has already voluntarily surrendered his licence. This disqualification would purely ensure he does not return to the industry, placing other young woman at risk from similar interactions.

(h)  The behaviour he demonstrated is detrimental to the reputation of racing and any offending of a sexual nature must be seriously denounced and taken extremely seriously.

(i)  Mr Bell’s offending clearly differs significantly from that of Mr Breslin in that none of the mitigations cited in that case can be applied.  It should also be noted there is 7 years between the offending of Breslin and Bell.

(j)  During this time period there has been a significant change in public perception around sexual offending and acknowledgement of the harm this type of behaviour causes. Any penalty needs to acknowledge this wider public interest.

CONCLUSION  – The RIB’s Position as to Penalty

[64] A condition of holding a Licence issued by GRNZ is that the holder must be “of good character” and this in a general sense is covered by the Rules in which a Licence Holder must not misconduct himself in relation to racing.

[65] A strong penalty of this nature is imperative in this case, not only to punish Mr Bell for the wrongdoing and harm he has caused, but to send a serious message to the Racing Industry that offending of this type will not be tolerated.

[66] Any penalty needs to deter others from engaging in such behaviour and help keep participants safe from unwanted sexual behaviour.

[67] Accordingly, the RIB seek a penalty of 18 months disqualification to be imposed.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS SUMMARISED – RESPONDENT

[68] In his submission, the Respondent stated:

(a)  He said he lost his job and income as a result of this allegation – a job that he said he “loved”.

(b)  He said that he was remorseful for sending photos to Complainant 1, but continued to allege “it was a two way street she sent me photos as well”.  

(c)  He said that the loss of his job and income is punishment enough and that he has to try start his life over again.

(d)  He concluded “I do not hold a licence and do not wish to every hold one again”.

PENALTY

[69] Improper conduct can include a wide range of behaviours that sit on a continuum of culpability from low level to serious.  Therefore, the penalty to be imposed, is one that must be considered on a fact dependent basis.

[70] The NZGR Rules provide a number of penalty options to be considered, from a warning or caution, through to a $10,000 fine and/or disqualification (see paragraph 13).

[71] Having fully considered the facts and the penalty submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined a period of disqualification to be an appropriate penalty in the circumstances of this case.

[72] In terms of guidance, there are no comparable cases that assist in arriving at a suitable penalty starting point penalty.  With regards to the case RIU v Breslin (2017), it is noteworthy that it was said with regards to the $8,000 fine imposed …“A key factor in our determining that such a penalty is not appropriate in this case is the fact that Mr Breslin did not previously know the complainant and thus this breach of the Rules is not a breach of trust involving an industry participant. Were there a relationship between complainant and respondent that was closely connected to racing, or if the breach had the hallmarks of an employer/employee power imbalance, we would view the matter very differently…In this case, the Respondent clearly did know the Complainants and due to his position, it can be said that there was a breach of trust; and there was a power imbalance.

[73] The evidence indicates that the Respondent’s modus operandi (MO) was to befriend Complainant 2, whilst in her teens.  He had also had an dealings with Complainant 1, when she was in her early teens, but that was not ongoing, until his unexpected invite to her to connect with him via Snapchat.  Over time, with regards to Complainant 2, a pattern of behaviour unfolded including; (1) relationship development, and general banter – consisting mainly common interests; (2) this gradual build-up no doubt led to the establishment of trust by the Complainant; (3) there followed an exchange of messages via Snapchat, the contents of which commenced as being of no real consequence and then escalated to include sexual content which was unsolicited.  In a broad sense, this type or pattern of behaviour is often referred to as ‘grooming’.

[74] It was quite telling that Complainant 2 said in her evidence that “I never came forward to tell the Stipes because I didn’t really see him as harassing me”.  This no doubt could be because of the trust the Respondent had established with her.  Over time, he sexualised some of the content and conversations, which perhaps could have had a normalising effect on her, thus her comment that she could not appreciate that he was harassing her, but nevertheless she was distressed.

[75] Being a recipient of unsolicited pictures depicting nudity or genitals, can be extremely distressing to the recipient.  Moreover, if the content, nature or tone of messaging escalates, and a receiver requests that the sender desist, and such request(s) are ignored, a continuation constitutes harassment. By extension, given that the Respondent was employed by GRNZ (an ‘Official’), coupled with his age compared to the two Complainants, the Adjudicative Committee is firmly of the view that his actions can be categorised as harassment, and as such, this amounts to Misconduct.

Starting Point Penalty

[76] The Adjudicative Committee places the Respondent’s level of culpability, due to the unsolicited sexual content or some pictures/messages, in the serious category and a 15 month period of disqualification is deemed to be an appropriate starting point penalty.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[77] There are no discernible mitigating factors identified, that can justifiably give rise to a reduction from the starting point penalty.  There are, however, some aggravating factors in addition to those outlined by the RIB in their submission at paragraph (63).  Notably, based on communications and submissions received from the Respondent, it appears that he has no appreciation of his wrongdoing.  Moreover, although he has said that he is remorseful for sending the photographs to Complainant 1, his remorse is qualified.  With regards to Complainant 2, despite the charge being proven, the Respondent has shown a total lack of remorse.  There is also an underlying sense that he continues to lay some blame on the Complainants.

[78] In consideration of the aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee applies a 3 month uplift to the starting point penalty.  Therefore, due to each of the charges being similar in nature, and looking at the totality of his offending, the Respondent is disqualified for 18 months, on each charge – to be served concurrently.

[79] It is also noted that the Respondent, in his submission, has advised that he has no intention of obtaining a GRNZ Licence in the future.  On that basis, this period of disqualification may be of little consequence to the Respondent.  However, the disqualification period should act as a deterrent to others in the wider Racing Industry, who may contemplate offending in this way in the future.  It should also give confidence to actual or potential victims that if they complain, their concerns will be listened to and treated seriously.

Final result 

[80]  The Respondent is disqualified from holding or obtaining an NZGR Licence for a period of 18 months.

[81] The disqualification will take effect immediately.

COSTS

[82]  Costs were not sought by the RIB.

[83] Although costs have been incurred by the Adjudicative Committee, in lieu of the Respondent’s current circumstances, there is no order for costs.

Decision Date: 21/12/2024

Publish Date: 30/12/2024