Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 31 March 2025 – Zev Meredith

INTRODUCTION

[1]  The Respondent, Junior Driver Mr Zev James Meredith, has admitted to two charges filed by Racing Investigator, Ms C Fox, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Board (RIB). Both charges stem from his refusal to provide a urine sample for testing and giving false and misleading information to Stewards at Alexandra Park on 7 February 2025.

[2]  During a teleconference on 17 February 2025, the Respondent confirmed that he admitted both charges and acknowledged that he understood the nature of each charge. A timetable was established for penalty submissions, and the date and venue for the penalty hearing were agreed upon.  As a result, the charges were dealt with at Pukekohe on 27 March 2025. The Respondent was supported at the hearing by Mr Tim Vince.

THE CHARGES

[3]  The two charges filed by the RIB which are admitted by the Respondent allege that:

Charge 1: Information No A18536:

On Friday, the 7 February 2025 at Auckland, you wilfully supplied false and misleading information to Senior Stipendiary Steward Steve Mulcay, regarding your whereabouts in an attempt to evade Driver Drug Testing, and you are therefore liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 1003(1) of the rules.

Charge 2: Information No A18534:

On  Friday the 7 February 2025 at  Alexandra Park, Auckland, having been required by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of your urine in accordance with Rule 212(1)(g) and 226(2)(d) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing at a time and place nominated by them, you refused to comply with such a request, and you are therefore liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 1003(1) of the rules.

PENALTY RESULT

[4]  After considering the evidence and submissions from the RIB and Respondent the following penalties were imposed:

Charge 1 – Information No A18536: The Respondent is fined $2,500, and his Junior Drivers Licence is suspended for a period of 6 months.  Commencing on 28 March 2025 and concluding 27 September 2025.

Charge 2 – Information No A18534:  The Respondent’s Junior Drivers Licence is suspended for a period of 8 months, commencing from the date he was stood down, namely 7 February 2025 and concluding 6 October 2025.

Both penalties are to be served concurrently.

THE RELEVANT RULES

[5]  The following HRNZ Rules are relevant to each of the charges.

Rule provides that 1001(1)(k):

Every person commits a serious racing offence within the meaning of these Rules, who, in New Zealand or in any other country:

(k)  wilfully supplies any false or misleading information, or makes any false or misleading declaration or statement, respecting any matter connected with racing or otherwise under these Rules to an Adjudicative Committee, an Appeals Tribunal, the Chairman, the Board the Stewards or Committee of a Club, a Stipendiary Steward, a Racing Investigator or any other Body, tribunal or person;

Rule 512(2)(a) provides that:

Every driver commits a breach of these Rules who having been required under the Rules by a Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator or Adjudicative Committee to supply a sample at a time and place nominated by the Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator or Adjudicative Committee refuses or fails:

(a)  To comply with such a request.

Rules 314(7) & (8) provide that:

(7) Every licence issued to a driver shall contain, or if it does not contain shall be conclusively presumed to contain, a condition that the person to whom the licence is issued shall, whenever he is required to do so by a Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator, permit a sample to be obtained from him by, or under the supervision of, a registered medical practitioner or by an authorised person (at such time as shall have been nominated by the Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator).

(8) Every person who applies for a Driver’s Licence shall be deemed to accept all the conditions or restrictions imposed by or under these Rules and (without prejudice to the generality of this sub-rule) to be debarred from questioning or disobeying or taking any legal action against the Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator or against a Club, or any person who was at any material time a member thereof, arising out of or in connection with or as a consequence of a sample having been obtained from him by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner or by an authorised person pursuant to a requirement of a Stipendiary Steward or Racing Investigator.

PENALTY PROVISIONS

[6]  The following penalty provisions are relevant to each charge.

Charge 1

Rule 1001(2) provides that:

(2) Every person who commits a serious racing offence shall be liable to the following penalties:

(a) a fine not exceeding $30,000; and/or 

(b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence, for any specific

period or for life; and/or    

(c) disqualification for a specific period or for life.

Charge 2

Rule 1003(1) provides that:

A person who commits a breach of any Rule shall (subject to the provisions of Rule 111(1)113(5), 451(3), 507(3), 1001 or 1004 hereof) shall be liable to the following penalties:

(a)  A fine not exceeding $10,000.00; and/or

(b)  Suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or

(c)  Disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months.

NZ HARNESS CODE OF CONDUCT

[7]  The NZ Harness Code of Conduct (the Code) came into force on 15 December 2021.  As a license-holder, the Respondent is bound by this Regulation.

The purpose of this Code is to:

1. Set a standard of conduct required by all participants in harness racing;
2. Ensure a clear understanding of what is expected and required in our conduct and behaviours to ensure a positive, healthy, supportive and professional working environment; and
3. Protect our sport, our people, and our reputation.

[8]  Of particular relevance with regards to Prohibited Substances and the Code at paragraph 5 provides that:

….All participants must abide by the applicable rules relating to prohibited substances and prohibited practices and ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure these rules are not contravened….

STANDARD OF PROOF

[9]  The standard of proof in proceedings before an Adjudicative Committee shall be the balance of probabilities.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

[10]  The Respondent, is the holder of both a Public Trainer and Junior Drivers Licence issued by Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ).

[11]  He is 22 years old and has been licenced as a Junior Driver since 2020, having previously held both a Stable hand (2018 – 2019) and Trials Driver Licence (2019 – 2020). He is based in Pukekohe where he trains a small team of horses, having been licenced as a Public Trainer since 2024.

Circumstances

[12]  On Friday 7 February 2025, Investigators from the RIB conducted routine drug testing at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park.

[13]  The Respondent was engaged to drive SASSY STAR in Race 3, beginning at 6:43pm and was one of thirteen people selected for testing who were performing a ‘safety sensitive activity’ that day.

[14]  At about 4:20pm, RIB staff began serving Drug Testing Notification forms on the selected participants.

[15]  All participants were advised that the testing was to begin at 4:30pm and conclude at 8:30pm.

[16]  At 5:55pm, Stewards were advised that the Respondent was unable to be located to serve the drug testing paperwork on him.

Charge One – Information A18536

[17]  At 5:57pm, Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mr Steve Mulcay, received a phone call from the Respondent advising he was unable to attend the meeting to drive SASSY STAR in Race 3, as his vehicle had broken down in Ramarama and he had no means of getting to Alexandra Park.

[18]  Mr Mulcay advised the Respondent that he would be required to provide documentation from a mechanic and/or tow company to confirm that his vehicle was broken down and unable to be driven.

[19]  Throughout the conversation, the Respondent’s language was ‘colourful’, and he was asked to take care his language due to being on speaker phone.

[20]  Mr Mulcay questioned the Respondent as to whether he had been contacted by anyone present at the track and he stated that he had not received any contact.  At 6:00pm, Mr Mulcay phoned RIB Investigator Ms Fox to advise her of the phone call from the Respondent.

Charge Two – Information A18534

[21]  At 6:08pm, following the phone call from Mr Mulcay, RIB staff entered the truck park in an attempt to locate the Respondent.

[22]  At 6:13pm, the Respondent was located lying in the rear footwell of the black Ford Ranger utility vehicle which was towing the ‘Balle Racing Stables’ float. The Respondent was asked to exit the vehicle to speak to RIB staff, however he initially remained on the floor, refusing to acknowledge the Investigator. The Respondent was again asked to exit the vehicle, to which he complied a few minutes later.

[23]  At 6:16pm, the Respondent was served with a Drug Testing Notification Form advising that he was required to present at The Drug Detection Agency (TDDA) van for testing between 4:30pm and 8:30pm.

[24]  The Respondent acknowledged that he understood, but advised that he would not provide a sample, as he would rather ‘no sample’, than add a further positive to his name. He was advised that, should he not provide a sample, he may be charged with failing to provide, to which he advised that he understood.

Respondents Comments

[25]  The Respondent advised that he was likely to test positive to Cannabis, as he was currently suffering with health issues, and Cannabis was the only thing that helped him function.

[26]  He stated that he has only recently started driving again, as he took four months off work, due to his health issues.

[27]  On-Track services were offered to the Respondent, however, he declined, advising that he was currently under the care of his Doctor.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS – RIB

[28]  Ms Fox, on behalf of the RIB, provided thorough penalty submissions.  These are summarised below.  Also, during the hearing Ms Fox highlighted key parts of the submissions.

Introduction

[29]  The Respondent has admitted two charges relating to offending that took place on Friday 7 February 2025 at Alexandra Park, Auckland.  The summary of facts at paragraphs 10 to 27, set out the circumstances of the Respondent’s offending.

The Drug Testing Regime

[30]  HRNZ commenced drug testing industry participants in 1998 and since then, there has been growing awareness that there is an absolute obligation on participants to present themselves free from the influences of drugs.

[31]  All Harness Drivers are aware that routine testing is conducted regularly and for two reasons: the need to maintain a healthy and safe workplace; and secondly to maintain the integrity of the industry.

[32] All Drivers should be aware of the policy and the consequences should they not comply.

The Respondents Judicial History

[33]  Enquiries undertaken with Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) regarding the Respondent’s Judicial History, confirm two previous breaches relating to drug use.

[34]  In April 2021, the Respondent was charged in relation to a positive result for Cannabis at a level of 110ng/ml and was subsequently suspended for four weeks.

[35]  In July 2023, the Respondent was again charged in relation to a positive result for Cannabis at a level of 30ng/ml and was subsequently suspended for eight weeks.  He has no current charges and has been drug tested on five previous occasions.

Penalty Provisions

[36]  The penalty provisions with regards to each charge is set out at paragraph 6.

Sentencing Principles

[37]  The four principles of sentencing include punishing the offender, deterring others, reflecting disapproval, and considering rehabilitation. The RIB asserts all these principles apply in this case.

Precedent Decisions

[38]  Previous cases involving false information and failure to provide a sample are cited by the RIB, with penalties ranging from suspensions to disqualifications, highlighting the seriousness of these offences.

Charge 1: Precedent Decisions  – Wilfully Supplies False or Misleading Information

[39]  The RIB submits that the previous penalties relating to breaches of HRNZ Rule 1001(1)(k), the charges relate largely to supplying low level false or misleading information to Stewards following an incident that occurred during a race and the majority are not relevant or helpful to this case.

[40]  The offending in question involved the Respondent deliberately deceiving RIB staff in an attempt to avoid drug testing.  Honesty is a fundamental cornerstone of Racing. It is imperative that, to ensure that the integrity of racing is not compromised, licence holders be honest and transparent with both Investigators and Stewards.

[41]  It is submitted by the RIB that one such case,  RIU v G B Bull (2013)  has some similarities to the Respondent’s offending.  Amateur Driver – Mr Bull was charged with betting on a rival horse in a race that he was driving in and with failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures in the run home to ensure that his horse was given every possible opportunity to win the race or obtain the best finishing position.  When questioned by the Stewards, Mr Bull deliberately denied betting on the horse in question, therefore making a false or misleading statement, in order to avoid facing prosecution regarding his actions. He was subsequently charged with breaching Rule 1001(1)(k).

[42]  Mr Bull was disqualified for a period of 1 year on the breach of Rules 505(1) (betting on a rival horse), 6 months for the breach of Rule 1001(1)(k) (supplying false or misleading information) and 2 months for not allowing horse to run on its merits. This penalty was to be served concurrently.  In October 2013, the RIU appealed this Decision, citing that the penalties imposed were inadequate. This appeal was subsequently dismissed.  In making their decision, the Appeals Tribunal stated:

“We are satisfied that the Judicial Committee in its carefully reasoned decision was conscious of the level of seriousness of Mr Bull’s offending. We are further satisfied that the Judicial Committee gave proper recognition and weight to the various aggravating factors and the limited mitigating factors and that were present.”

Charge 2: Precedent Decisions – Failure to Provide a Sample

[43]  Since the RIB was established in 2021, there has been one case involving a Harness Driver who failed to supply a sample as directed by an Investigator, namely RIB v S McCaffrey (2024). Open Driver/Public Trainer – Mr McCaffrey failed to provide a sample when requested by an Investigator, advising the Adjudicative Committee that he was “too busy” to do so. He received a 6-month suspension of his Driver’s Licence and $1,250 in costs.

[44]  It is submitted by the RIB that the penalty in McCaffrey is disproportionate to the penalties imposed on thoroughbred participants for ‘failing to provide’ and provides no incentive for licence holders to comply with the drug testing procedure in the knowledge that they may test positive to a Class A drug.

[45]  Under the previous Racing Integrity Unit (RIU), three historic cases have been found, with the most recent in 2015 – RIU v C Kennett (2015) – 2nd Breach. Open Horseman Licence – Mr Kennett admitted the breach and the Committee was satisfied that, due to the circumstances leading up to the offence, Mr Kennett “forgot” to attend the testing. He received a 12-month suspension, with a discount of 2 months for the period of suspension served and his co-operation and admission of the breach.  In determining penalty, the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) stated :

“The integrity of Harness Racing is at issue when a licence-holder fails to comply with his obligations under the Rules.”

[46]  In RIU v C Kennett (2011) – 1st Breach – Open Horseman Mr Kennett failed to provide a sample, due to the testing technician being female. He received a 9-month suspension and $400 fine.

[47]  In RIU v G Robb (2014) – 2nd Breach – At the time of the offence, Mr Robb held an Open Horseman Licence. Immediately following the offence, he voluntarily exited the industry and ‘handed in’ his licence. He received a penalty of 6-months disqualification. In considering penalty, the JCA stated:

“In our opinion it is paramount the need to ensure Harness Racing is ‘drug free’ in order to maintain the integrity of the industry. There is also the issue of safety of horsemen and horses.”

New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) licence holders failing to provide a sample

[48]  RIB v A Bosson-Thompson (2022) –Trackwork Rider – Received a 10-month disqualification and costs of $400.

[49]  RIB v N Thompson (2022) – Trackwork Rider – Received a 10-month disqualification and costs of $400.

[50]  RIB v C Jones (2022) – Apprentice Jockey – Received a 7-month suspension. Mitigating features were present in this case that resulted in a suspension, as opposed to a disqualification.

[51]  It is submitted by the RIB that the penalty in Jones is disproportionate to the more recent penalties imposed on thoroughbred positives for anything but Cannabis and provides no ​incentive for licence holders to comply with the drug testing procedure in the knowledge that they may test positive to a Class A Drug.  A penalty for failing to present, must therefore exceed, or at least equal, the penalty for providing a sample positive to a Class ‘A’ Drug.

[52]  RIU v A Taylor (2021) – Trainer –  Received a 12-month Disqualification. In determining the appropriate penalty, the JCA adopted the position of the Judicial Committee in the case of RIU v Waddell when it said:

“The drug testing regime in Racing is an important protection that has been in place for industry participants since 1995. The testing regime is to ensure the safety and welfare of all licence holders and horses.  A refusal under the Rules to submit to a drug test by providing a urine sample when requested is a serious breach of the Rules. When a Licence Holder refuses to provide a sample the RIU is denied the ability to find out what, if any, prohibited substance is in the Licence Holders system. A refusal means the drug test has not been completed and leaves it open as to what the test may have revealed in  respect of any illicit drug.” 

The Committee went on to say that  “A fair presumption to make for the purposes of determining penalty is to presume that there would have been a positive test for a Class A Controlled Drug.” 

[53]  RIU v Waddell (2020) – Jockey –  Received a 22-month Disqualification. Previous positive drug test to a Class A Drug.

[54]  The most recent penalty for a Harness Driver positive to a Class A drug is O Gillies.  Prior to this, there had been no cases since 2011.  RIB v O GILLIES (2023) – NRI Decision was upheld on appeal.  Public Trainer and Graduation Driver O Gillies – returned a positive to both Methamphetamine (Class A) and Cannabis (Class C) and received a 9-month disqualification of both Licences in relation to the Methamphetamine charge and a 6-week suspension for the Cannabis Charge. In determining penalty, the Committee stated:

“This case must serve as a warning, a deterrent and a timely reminder to others in the industry who may contemplate using Prohibited Drugs.”

Mr Gillies appealed the penalty on the basis that “the starting point adopted by the Adjudicative Committee was manifestly excessive. This by reference to the maximum offending for a like breach in Thoroughbred Racing.”

The Appeal was dismissed.

[55]  The RIB also referred to other penalties imposed on NZTR Track Riders and Jockeys who returned a positive result to the Class A Controlled Drug Methamphetamine.

Harness Racing Penalty Guideline 

[56]  On the 1st of October 2024, the Racing Integrity Board published a ‘Penalty Guide’ in respect of Harness Racing.

The starting point for a breach of HRNZ Rules 1001(1) (Charge 1) is listed as “Fact dependent. A fine, period of suspension or disqualification may be considered.”

The starting point for a breach of HRNZ Rule 512(2) (Charge 2) is listed as a 6-month suspension.

The RIB submits that these Guidelines should be used as a reference only and do not take into account a number of factors.

[57]  In Gillies, the Committee stated the following regarding the Penalty Guidelines: “It is important for consistency that ‘like’ offending, as far as possible is dealt with by ‘like’ penalties within the Guidelines set down by each Code’s Rules and Penalty Guides”.

[58]  The RIB therefore submits that any penalty received by a Harness Racing participant should be equal, where possible, to that of a Thoroughbred Racing participant for similar offending.

Aggravating Factors

[59]  In April 2021, the Respondent was charged in relation to a positive result for Cannabis at a level of 110ng/ml and was subsequently suspended for four weeks.

[60]  In July 2023, the Respondent was again charged in relation to a positive result for Cannabis at a level of 30ng/ml and was subsequently suspended for eight weeks.

[61]  Having been drug tested on five previous occasions, with two positive results, the Respondent was well aware of his obligations as a Driver and the consequences, should he breach the HRNZ Rules relating to drug use.

[62]  On Friday 7 February 2025, the Respondent phoned Senior Stipendiary Steward, Steve Mulcay, and deliberately provided him with false and misleading information regarding his whereabouts in a blatant attempt to avoid being served with drug testing documentation.

[63]  The Respondent then hid in the rear footwell of a vehicle in an attempt to avoid detection from RIB staff.  When located by the RIB Investigator, the Respondent initially ignored her directions to exit the vehicle, so that she could serve him with the appropriate paperwork.

[64]  When spoken to, the Respondent advised that he did not intend to provide a sample during the time period specified and would rather ‘no sample’ than have a further positive next to his name, indicating that at the time that he was engaged to drive, he had illicit drugs in his system.

Mitigating Factors  

[65]  The Respondent has been stood down from Race Day and Trials driving since the February 2025.

[66]  He pleaded guilty to both charges at the first opportunity.

Penalty

[67]  In conclusion, the RIB submitted that that there needs to be some parity between the codes and that the penalty for failing to provide (or present for) a sample must therefore exceed, or at least be equal to, the penalty for providing a sample positive to a ‘Class A’ Drug, otherwise there is no incentive for licence holders to comply with the drug testing procedure.  The RIB cannot determine categorically what drug, if any, may have been in Mr Meredith’s system.

[68]  Further to this, the charge relating to the provision of false and misleading information by Mr Meredith, was a deliberate attempt to evade detection and forego the drug testing process.

[69]  Given the seriousness of the conduct in this case, and the Respondent’s deceptive behaviour for the purpose of avoiding drug testing, the Informant submits that the penalty must be one of disqualification.

Conclusion – Penalties Sought by the RIB

Charge 1

[70]  That a 6-month disqualification of both his Public Trainers and Junior Drivers Licence should be imposed for ‘Wilfully Supplying False or Misleading Information’.

Charge 2

[71]  That a 9-month disqualification of his Junior Drivers Licence should be imposed for the ‘Failure to Provide a Sample’.

[72]  The RIB submits that the penalties should be cumulative in nature, but accepts that this is a matter for the Adjudicative Committee to determine.

At the Hearing

[73]  At the hearing, Ms Fox advised that having now read the Respondent’s submissions, which were not available to the RIB when they lodged their submissions, she said that the RIB is now more aware of the Respondent’s personal circumstances and the background to his offending.  She said his submissions were compelling and that the RIB would leave it to the Adjudicative Committee to decide on penalty.  She added that any leniency should only be in the context of the Respondent’s special circumstances, and the resultant penalty should not be seen as a precedent.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS – RESPONDENT

[74]  Submissions were lodged by the Respondent and Mr Vince. These are summarised below. Also during the course of the hearing, they both highlighted key portions of their submissions.

Background Information

[75]  The Respondent’s submissions comprised two parts. The first part included very detailed personal and health information. The second part discussed the two charges and how any proposed penalty would affect his health, wellbeing, finances, and relationships with others in the industry.

[76]  The Adjudicative Committee considered the personal information compelling and decided that this information should not be shared or reproduced, but noted that it was very persuasive.  Moreover, it was relevant and particularly helpful in determining any proposed penalty. Therefore, the information has been fully assessed and considered in reaching the final result.

[77]  The Respondent now trains a small team of horses, achieving great success, including two group-level victories. He is supported by the Baynes family from Southland, who are aware of the Respondent’s struggles, they have contributed to his support by sending him horses for training. As a result, he now has seven horses from the Southland region, with the likelihood of more in the near future. Looking ahead, the Respondent has cleared his debts and accumulated assets, including a recent purchase from the 2025 yearling sales, a race sulky, and a small number of weaner cows. These combined efforts have contributed to his recovery from his health issues.

[78]  The Respondent acknowledges and accepts that he had problems and is working hard to address them, along with health professionals to fix and manage them.  He advises that he has adopted a healthier lifestyle with a better diet and now has a gym and swimming centre membership.  He has also now reconnected with family who are supporting him. In that regard, he stated “My rehabilitative approach which was instigated on my own account prior to the 7th of February showing that I willingly took my own steps to improve my health and lifestyle, …”.

[79]  The Respondent outlined his accomplishments as a Junior Driver, which include having attended 4 national championships and 1 international tournament, and twice runner up in the NZ Championships.

Charge 1

[80]  The Respondent opened his submission with regards to Charge 1, by offering an apology to Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Mulcay for providing him with false and misleading information.  He said, “I would like to first and foremostly apologise for my dishonesty with senior stipendiary Steve Mulcay.” The Adjudicative Committee also understands that he has apologised directly to Mr Mulcay.

[81]  The Respondent argued that the circumstances of the Bull case were different “because Mr Bull placed a bet on a rival horse in a race he was driving in, then essentially pulled it up, and when questioned lied to stewards in an act to evade being found guilty for potentially two other charges”.  He also pointed out that Bull received a pecuniary gain.

[82]  The Respondent suggested this charge can be more likened to RIB v A Mudhoo (Feb 2025), who was charged with forgery of a signature (Rule 801(1) Misconduct Serious Racing Offence).  The Respondent submitted that in Mr Mudhoo’s case, the criminal offence involved, being forging a signature for pecuniary gain, namely acquiring $6,500. He referred to the fact that the RIB sought a fine no less than $1,500 and a suspension be considered. Jockey A Mudhoo was fined $2,500.

[83]  The Respondent referred to HRNZ Rules that state “penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense they are disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.”

[84]  In concluding his submission with regards to Charge 1, the Respondent said “I ask for a fine of no more than $2000 and a suspension of my junior driver’s license for a period no longer than 6 months. A disqualification would completely take away my livelihood I have no other source of income and after devoting my life to this game since the day I left school. I have no idea how else to make a living that does not involve racehorses. They are also paramount for my health.”

Charge 2

[85]  With regards to Charge 2, the Respondent acknowledged the seriousness of the breach.  He refuted any suggestion that he may have used Class A Drugs.  He said that due to his history and evidence he provided in Part 1 of his submission, that the chances of a Class A Drug being detected in his system, to be most improbable.

[86]  The Respondent said that in addition to mentioning to Ms Fox, that he was likely to return a positive for Cannabis, he  was also uncomfortable with going in the van to provide a sample.  He added that he did offer to provide a sample on the following Monday, adding that “I feel the presence of negative tests amongst the positive results shows I have not been completely ignorant to the rule and have shown effort to oblige, as well as standing myself down from driving for a period of time.”

[87]  The Respondent suggested his Junior Driver’s Licence be suspended for 12 months with conditions imposed, including:

1. Prohibiting him from driving at workouts and/or trials; and
2. Be required to supply the RIB with a clear drug test before nominating a horse in any totaliser race.

Penalty Submissions – Mr Vince (summarised)

[88]  Mr Vince said the Respondent has admitted both charges.

[89]  He said that given his history of Cannabis use, it is most unlikely any other ‘class’ of drug would have been detected, had he agreed to provide a sample.  Mr Vince therefore submits that the penalty should be set on the assumption that he may have used Cannabis. Referring to the Waddell case, he said the circumstances of that case were quite different to this matter.

[90]  With regards to misleading Stewards, Mr Vince said that it was because Mr Meredith “panicked”.  He said that [lying] is not usually  a factor which aggravates a penalty – the RIB regards this as a serious offence, but natural justice principles should limit the extent to which there is an additional penalty for lying. But he accepts it is a factor that should be taken into account when sentencing.  He also pointed to other cases where a Rider or Driver have told lies to Stewards, but they were not charged with misleading i.e. the case of C Jones for example.

[91]  Mr Vince referred to matters that were raised in Part 1 of the Respondent’s submission, which the Adjudicative Committee has suppressed.  But he did reinforce and confirm trauma that the Respondent has suffered, and he provided some detail and background information, which explains some of the factual matters relating to the Respondent’s offending.  These have been noted by the Adjudicative Committee and those matters taken into account, as part of the deliberation process.

[92]  Mr Vince submitted that “disqualification would be a crushing and life changing blow”. He said that his ability is not in question, having trained a Group One winner at his tender age, and he continues to have good support from Owners, and he is in a stable relationship.

[93]  In conclusion, Mr Vince urged the Adjudicative Committee to impose the lightest suspension, but allow him to keep training.

DECISION AND REASONS

[94]  The Respondent has admitted to two separate serious offences, which are inextricably linked, as each charge forms part of the factual narrative.  They essentially arose from the same set of facts, as the evidence shows that the false and misleading information provided to Mr Mulcay by the Respondent, was done so in order that he avoid providing a urine sample. Notwithstanding the connection between each offence, they are also separate and distinct, with each requiring its own evaluation.

[95] Therefore, in assessing culpability and appropriate penalties, the Adjudicative Committee has considered the entirety of the Respondent’s actions, while ensuring that he is not penalised twice, for what may be considered the same continuous incident.

[96]  This approach ensures that the total penalty reflects (a) the Respondent’s overall culpability; (b) it is in conformity with the HRNZ Rules and the RIB Penalty Guide; and (c) it follows precedents Decisions for like offending.

[97]  The HRNZ Code of Conduct Regulations (effective 15 December 2021) establishes the standards that participants, including Drivers and Trainers, are required to follow. The Code requires that participants, including Drivers and Trainers, must act with integrity and comply with all applicable Harness Rules, Regulations, Directives, and Orders. And that All participants must abide by the applicable Rules relating to Prohibited Substances.

[98]  The Respondent’s behaviour on this occasion, fell well below the requisite standards expected of Licensed Persons.

[99]  Wilfully providing false information to Stewards or Racing Investigators, is a serious offence with significant consequences, for which the Respondent must be held accountable.  His actions are worsened because he told lies clearly to avoid providing a urine sample, which may have tested positive, therefore escaping any penalty that may have followed.

[100]  In considering the penalty for each of the two charges, the Adjudicative Committee has taken into account the following factors:

1. The factual circumstances of each charge as outlined in the agreed Summary of Facts.
2. The penalty submissions lodged by the Applicant and by and on behalf of the Respondent, including mitigating and aggravating factors and his personal circumstances.
3. The Respondent’s age, his record which includes two previous breaches for drug-related charges, and his capacity and willingness to rehabilitate.

CHARGE 1 – False and Misleading Information

Starting Point Penalty

[101]  By virtue of the penalty framework contained within HRNZ Rules at (r) 1002, Charge 1 is deemed to be a Serious Racing Offence for which the Respondent is liable to maximum penalties of a $30,000 fine or up to life suspension or disqualification.

[102]  The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (as of October 2024) provides that a breach of Rule 1001(1) should be dealt with on a fact dependent basis, with options for an Adjudicative Committee to impose either a fine, a period of suspension or disqualification.  The Penalty Guide also provides that all starting point penalties assume the severity of the breach in mid-range.

[103] Having considered the evidence, the submissions, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the Respondent’s level of culpability, which was assessed as being above mid-range, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point penalty of 6 months suspension of the Respondent’s Junior Drivers Licence.

Reasons for Penalty

[104]  The Adjudicative Committee found that the false and misleading information was provided to Mr Mulcay by the Respondent, so that he could avoid being required to participate in the drug testing that was occurring on-course.  It was only due to Ms Fox’s suspicion and perseverance, that shortly after the Respondent made the phone call to Mr Mulcay, she located him hiding in the rear footwell of a vehicle parked on the racecourse.

[105]  It is significant that the charge admitted by the Respondent implies it was done so ‘wilfully’, suggesting that it was deliberate and not by mistake. But the Adjudicative Committee notes that the Respondent, by his own admission, is said to have panicked; there was no time for premeditation, and he simply reacted not only impulsively, but also foolishly to the situation.

[106]  When Ms Fox asked the Respondent to exit the vehicle, he initially ignored her directions and when she finally got to speak to him, he advised her that he did not intend to provide a sample during the time period specified and would rather a ‘no sample’ than a further positive next to his name – indicating the likelihood of a positive result.

[107]  Whereas a disqualification would effectively remove the Respondent completely from the industry, a suspension of his Junior Drivers Licence will enable him to remain connected and able to continue to train for the period it is in force. The Adjudicative Committee had to balance the impact on the Respondent’s personal circumstances a disqualification would have had on the business side of his training operation; the horses that he trains and their Owners.  These personal factors, along with all the other circumstances, have been taken into account and have been weighed against the need to ensure that:

• The penalty imposed upholds the integrity of racing and protects racing industry, participants and the public.
• The penalty must ensure that safety standards are met and maintained as drug impaired Drivers are a significant risk to themselves, fellow Drivers and horses.
• The penalty must denounce the Respondent’s actions and defer others.
• The penalty must also reflect and conform with HRNZ policy intent to ensure that the industry is drug free.
• Finally, the penalty needs to ensure the professional reputation and integrity of the Racing Industry is upheld.

Comparable Cases

[108]  The RIB has referred to the case of RIU v G B Bull (2013), which is helpful only to the extent that one of the three charges against Mr Bull, related to providing false and misleading information, which resulted in a 6 month disqualification, which was upheld on appeal. The other two charges, arguably were more serious, because they related to betting on a rival horse in the same race that he drove in and not driving his horse on its merits.   In their Appeal Decision, the Tribunal stated:

…3.6 Sentencing authorities have a wide discretion in order to take into account numerous considerations or factors which may be relevant. This was noted by Richardson J in the Court of Appeal in Fisheries Inspector V Turner [1978] 2 NZLR 233, 237 as follows:

“It is only by allowing the sentencing authorities a wide discretion that they are able to take into account innumerable factors affecting the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. All of which should ordinarily be weighed in determining the appropriate sentence in the particular case.”

[109] The Adjudicative Committee assessed the Bull case as being more serious than the circumstances of this case, due to the perception of actual or potential corruption that could be inferred and the fact that it involved financial gain.

[110] Although there are a limited number of cases relating to license-holders providing Stewards with false and/or misleading information, there are a sufficient number of such cases across the three racing codes to collectively be of some assistance.  More often than not, these cases have arisen from raceday incidents and have been dealt with under the misconduct provisions or the specific Code Rule.  In the main, these matters have been disposed of by way of fines, suspensions or a combination of both, as indicated in the Table below:

NZGR
RIU v Mann	29/11/12	Fine $1,000
RIU v Lloyd	15/07/11	Fine $250
RIU v Robinson	05/05/11	2 charges including one for prohibited substance total 6 months disqualification– 3 months disqualification for false statement
NZTR
NZTR v Cameron	18/12/07	3 charges – 2 months suspension
RIU v Holmes	30/05/11	3 charges – 2 weeks suspension
RIU v Hubber	05/03/10	Fine $400
RIU v B Grylls	18/12/13	Fine $1,250
HRNZ
RIU v Bull	14/11/13	Appeal Tribunal – 3 charges – 6 months disqualification
RIU v Anderson	10/11/16	Fine $300 + 4 driving days suspension
RIU v Downey	12/02/14	Fine $450 – 4 driving days suspension
RIU v White	11/10/11	Suspended 4 months

[111]  The cases of Cameron (2007) and Grylls (2013), do bear some resemblance to the circumstances of this case, in that they gave false and misleading statements, stating they could not fulfil riding engagements because of transport difficulties (i.e. their cars had broken down).  In the case of Grylls, in explanation she said that she had been advised by other female Jockeys on course at Te Aroha, that drug testing was being conducted and that she would be subject to a test. Ms Grylls had been at a party in Cambridge on Saturday 30 November and she had become very drunk. She told the Investigator that she thought she would fail the test because of this and decided to make up a story about a tyre puncture, to avoid the drug test. Ms Grylls received a $1,250 fine.  Mr Cameron faced a total of three charges, and his licence to ride in races was suspended for 2 months.

In the case of Harness Trainer Mr White – RIU v C White (2011), he faced two charges of giving false and misleading information to Stewards.  The RIU submitted that Mr White had failed to tell the truth on five separate occasions.  In terms of penalty, the RIU submitted that:

…a suspension between 4 and 6 months should be imposed. A disqualification was not considered to be appropriate, as Mr White has an income from working at Addington Raceway, and this work is not related to Harness Racing.

In the case of Harness Driver Mr Downey – RIU v R Downey (2014), he received a $450 fine and 4 (driving days) suspension for continuing to provide false and misleading information to Stewards.  In its Decision, the Judicial Committee stated:

…[22] Ultimately Stewards were not fooled by Mr Downey’s continued prevarication, but… there was an unnecessary waste of time and effort expended by Stewards.

…[23] The Committee has noted that a breach of this Rule is not included in Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees. This is because this rule is not often breached, and penalty is often determined by the facts of each case. On that basis the public can be assured that this type of behaviour is very rare in racing and when it does occur Stewards take the appropriate action to ensure that integrity of racing is maintained.

…[24] Notwithstanding the limited number of cases the Committee has taken guidance from RIU v B, …RIU v W (2011) which related to a driver who supplied false and misleading information to Stewards….[25] We have noted the similarities and points of difference between B and W and this case. B was fined $400 and suspended for 2 weeks after admitting the breach at the first opportunity. W faced two charges, and he was suspended for a period of 4 months…In our opinion the penalty handed out in B establishes a valid starting point and benchmark for us to determine this penalty.

[112]  The Adjudicative Committee also noted that even within Australian racing jurisdictions, there are a limited number of cases relating to Trainers, Drivers or Jockeys providing false or misleading information or statements to Stewards.  For comparison purposes, the following Australian cases provide some guidance:

NSW Appeals Tribunal decision – Trainer C Lundholm (7 August 2020)

[113]  Mr Lundholm faced two charges.  Charge 1 related to giving false and misleading information to Stewards.  Charge 2 was for having in his possession Prohibited Substances and/or needle/syringe without permission. In relation to Charge 1, his Licence to train was disqualified for a period of 4 months. In determining the penalty, the Stewards considered the 2 starting points was a six-month disqualification. Lundholm appealed.  In their Decision of 7 August 2020, the NSW Appeals Tribunal, in upholding the 4 month ban, made the following pertinent comments:

 …12. The circumstances of this Appeal are very unfortunate. The Panel accepts that the Appellant is a young trainer (albeit with 15 years’ experience in the industry), who is a person of good character, who has made a very silly and poor decision when asked by Stewards about the oral syringes found in the float on 30 May. We also accept he panicked during the inquiry. We accept he is genuinely remorseful and contrite. ….

…14. It perhaps need not be repeated, but will be, that when licensed trainers lie to Stewards it is a real attack on the integrity of the sport. It is an obvious hinderance to those charged with upholding that integrity.

[114]  This decision is helpful to the extent that 4 months disqualification was imposed from a 6 month starting point.  The Adjudicative Committee believes the case against the Respondent, Mr Meredith is less serious than that against Trainer C Lundholm, due to him lying to cover up possession of Prohibited Substances and/or instruments (that could be used for raceday administration).

VRC Tribunal – Jockey’s – J Kah,  M Zahra, B Melham and E Brown (2021)

[115] High profile Victorian Jockey’s  J Kah,  M Zahra, B Melham and E Brown were all involved in what became known as the Airbnb case.  The Jockeys were charged with providing false and misleading information to Stewards during the course of the ‘Airbnb’ investigation.

• J Kah – following a 2-month suspension she appealed to the Supreme Court and was cleared of giving false and/or misleading evidence to Stewards.
• M Zahra – received a 1-month suspension for giving false and/or misleading evidence to Stewards.
• B Melham – received a 2-month suspension for giving false and/or misleading evidence to Stewards.
• E Brown – received a 2-month suspension.

Queensland Racing v J Orman (2020)

[116]  Jockey Jimmy Orman, the top Brisbane Rider, received a 1-month suspension after being found guilty of trying to deceive Stewards when weighing in, after winning the last race on the card at that meeting.

Queensland Racing v B Wheeler (2024)

[117]  Apprentice Jockey Bailey Wheeler received a 1-month suspension after he was found to have lied to Stewards over a breathalyser test, before he rode at the Ipswich Cup meeting.

NSW Racing v C Williams (2021)

[118]  Apprentice Jockey Chris Williams received a 1-month suspension after he was found to have lied to Stewards.  Williams contacted Stewards leading up to Thursday’s Wyong meeting and said he would be unable to fulfil his engagements after being pulled over by “the police for speeding.”  Williams told the Steward he’d been fined $1,100 for speeding and other traffic infringements. When asked to provide evidence of the fine, Williams contacted Stewards and advised he had provided false evidence and the reason for not riding at the meeting, was he was overweight.

[119]  Notwithstanding the relative differences between each of the comparable cases, including Bull in the New Zealand jurisdiction and the Australian examples, it is clear that penalties vary considerably.  Of note, both Bull (6 months disqualification) and Lundholm (4 months disqualification) are outliers, given the other cases have resulted in suspensions ranging from 1 to 3 months.  The Adjudicative Committee has already alluded to the fact that it believes this present case is less serious than either Bull or Lundholm. 

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[120]  Due consideration has been given to the aggravating and mitigating factors submitted by the RIB.  These are outlined at paragraphs 59 to 66. Equally, due consideration has been given to the mitigating factors raised by and on behalf of the Respondent at paragraphs 80 to 84 and 90 to 93.

[121]  Aggravating factors include the Respondent’s prior positive drug test, his deliberate attempts to evade being drug testing by providing false information.  He further avoided being served with drug testing papers by hiding from RIB staff. The Adjudicative Committee agrees with the RIB’s submission that the Respondent deliberately deceived RIB staff in an attempt to avoid drug testing and that honesty is a fundamental cornerstone of Racing.

[122]  Mitigating factors include the Respondent’s age, his health issues; his admission of the breach at the first opportunity and his record under this particular Rule (but noting he has previous history for drug use).

[123] The two breaches essentially arose in his capacity as Driver as opposed to a Trainer.  The question that the Adjudicative Committee grappled with was whether a disqualification (which would also affect his Trainers Licence) in addition to the penalty imposed for Charge 2, would be manifestly disproportionate penalties, given the two arose out of the same factual situation.

[124]  The situation in Harness is generally different to Thoroughbred Racing, because Riders very rarely hold dual Trainers/Riders Licences, whereas in Harness Racing many Trainers hold both Licences.

Penalty

[125]  In the final result, the Adjudicative Committee determined, taking into account comparable penalties and all of the surrounding circumstancing, that a $2,500 fine and a 6-month suspension of the Respondent’s Junior Drivers Licence to be a fitting penalty for Charge 1.

CHARGE 2 – Failure to Provide Sample

Starting Point Penalty

[126]  The RIB considers the penalty should be set at 9 months disqualification. The RIB also suggests that the two penalties should be cumulative i.e. an end penalty of 15 months disqualification. On the other hand, the Respondent has submitted that a 12 month suspension of his Driver’s Licence, with conditions, to be imposed.

[127]  Having considered the evidence, submissions, precedent decisions, and aggravating and mitigating factors, the Adjudicative Committee determined the starting point penalty as set out in the Penalty Guide to be appropriate. Accordingly, a six-month suspension of the Respondent’s Driver’s Licence was adopted as the starting point for this charge. This is consistent with the position taken by the Adjudicative Committee in McCaffrey (2024).

Reasons for Penalty

[128]  The RIB submits that there should be parity between the Thoroughbred and Harness Codes, when a Jockey or Driver fails or refuses to provide a urine sample upon request. However, this approach fails to recognize the inherent differences in the Rules and Penalty Guides of each Code.

[129]  There are not only relative differences in the starting point penalties for each Code, but also differences between the maximum penalties that an Adjudicative Committee can impose under the respective Codes’ Rules and penalty regimes.

[130]  The Thoroughbred Penalty Guide does not specify a starting point for failing to provide a sample; cases are thus dealt with on a fact-dependent basis. In contrast, the Harness Penalty Guide specifically stipulates a starting point of a six-month suspension for a first offence involving failure to provide a urine sample.

[131]  The Adjudicative Committee cannot simply disregard the Rules and Penalty Guides and transpose Thoroughbred Rules and penalties into Harness penalties – the precedent cases discussed in the next section demonstrate this point.

[132]  The RIB submitted that the specific drug that may or may not, have been in the Respondent’s system, cannot be categorically determined.  The Adjudicative Committee agrees to a point, but has come to the view, given the Respondent’s history of Cannabis use and matters raised in his submissions and advice given during the hearing,  it is more probable than not, that had he provided a sample, it would have returned a positive result to Cannabis, rather than another Prohibited Drug.

Comparable Cases

[133]  Precedent cases relating to a failure to provide a urine sample between the two Codes, reflect the differences in penalties imposed, with most Thoroughbred penalties tending to have resulted in a mix of either suspension or disqualifications, whereas Harness penalties have all been suspensions.

[134]  Refer Table 1 at Appendix A attached to this Decision.  This clearly demonstrates the relative differences that exist between the two Codes’ penalty regimes and starting points.

RIB v O Gillies (2023)

[135]  The Harness case of RIB v O GILLIES (21.08.2023) which was referred to by the RIB, did not involve a failure to provide a sample.  In fact, Mr Gillies did provide a sample and tested positive to both Methamphetamine and Cannabis – see further reference to this case under heading RIB v O Gillies (2023).

RIB v C Jones (2022)

[136]  The RIB referred to the C Jones Thoroughbred Decision as being “disproportionate”, because Apprentice Rider C Jones received a suspension rather than a disqualification for failing to provide a urine sample. However, in the Jones’ case, it was the RIB that sought a suspension in favour of disqualification, submitting that “a 12-month disqualification would therefore penalize him financially in the vicinity of $65,000. Should Mr. Jones receive a suspension solely of his Class B Apprentice Jockey license, this would enable him to apply for a Class E Amateur license to allow him to continue riding track work.” In Jones, several mitigating factors were present, many of which mirror Mr Meredith’s current personal circumstances. It is also noteworthy that Mr Jones admitted to using Cannabis during a break from racing and failed to provide an acceptable sample to avoid any penalty that may have resulted.

Also in the Jones’ case, the RIB cited the Rauhihi Decision, noting that the Committee in that case stated with regards to suspension versus disqualification:

“We accept the comment, made in RIU V Thorby where in reference to RIU v Brownlee, the committee stated that it  “…saw no need to deprive the respondent of his industry related livelihood completely which related in suspension rather than disqualification being ordered”. It is clear that disqualification would have a massive financial implication upon Mr Rauhihi’s ability to earn a living and provide for his family.”

Appeal Decision B Orange v RIU (2021)

[137]  Adjudicative Committees should adhere to the Decisions of Appeals Tribunals, unless there are strong and compelling reasons not to do so. Even in such cases, it would be risky for an Adjudicative Committee to completely disregard an Appeals Tribunal’s Decision, as these Decisions guide and inform decision-making to ensure consistency. This principle arises from the legal doctrine of stare decisis (“to stand by things decided” or “do not disturb things decided”).

[138]   The Appeal Decision B Orange v RIU (2021) is particularly helpful. In Orange, the Tribunal made the following pertinent comments, which are of relevance to this Decision:

….22. It can be assumed that the starting point for cases for breaches of the Thoroughbred Racing Rules consider that maximum penalty. In the same way, breaches of r 513 must take into account the maximum penalty under the Harness Racing Rules. We are satisfied it was wrong for the JCA to simply transpose a case under the Thoroughbred Racing Rules with a significantly higher maximum penalty and a very much higher alcohol level to reach a starting point that it did in this case (para 22)

….23. Mr Lange is right to submit that the JCA Penalty Guide is simply that as the JCA stated. However, the Guide does stress the need for consistency but recognises the need to retain the Judicial Committee’s discretion to be exercised within readily ascertainable and transparent, parameters. In this case, in arriving at a starting point of six weeks with a 190 mcg/l level, we do not consider that the aim of consistency and equity in penalties has been fairly achieved (para 23)

….26.  An overriding consideration is the need for equity in the penalties that are imposed (para 26)

….27. We agree with Mr Eaton’s submission that this is an entirely appropriate and realistic mechanism to ensure equity amongst the participants. In this way the process will afford all participants in Harness racing, including the betting public, a high degree of confidence in the fairness and equity of the Rules regime. In applying the Guide, it is appropriate to consider the individual consequences of the penalty imposed including the loss of drives.

….28. While we accept it is only a Guide; we consider there must be clear and compelling reasons to set it to one side and to go further. We do not see such compelling considerations in this case.

RIB v S McCaffrey (2024)

[139]  This discrepancy has been raised in other Decisions, for example RIB v O GILLIES (2023). However, Gillies did provide a sample and tested positive to both Methamphetamine and Cannabis.  Since Gillies, the issue of parity was also raised in the case of RIB v S McCaffrey (2024).  Mr McCaffrey failed to provide a sample when requested by an Investigator.  The RIB in that case sought parity, but the Adjudicative Committee preferred to accept the 6 months suspension starting point as outlined in the RIB Harness Penalty Guide.

RIB Harness Penalty Guide

[140]  The RIB Harness Penalty Guide, which was reviewed and reissued on 1 October 2024, serves as a key reference for regulatory measures within the Harness Racing community. This most recent edition was formulated through extensive consultation with various stakeholders, including Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ), Drivers, Trainers, and Adjudicators.

[141]  The RIB Harness Penalty Guide continues to support the integrity and credibility of Harness Racing, ensuring that all participants are held to high standards of conduct and compliance.

[142]  A significant aspect of the review was the decision to maintain the starting point penalty for failing to provide a urine sample. The established penalty aligns with the penalties set in Australian Harness Racing, ensuring consistency and equity across the sport in both countries.

Comparable Australian cases

[143]  Given the scarcity of recent precedent cases in New Zealand; the Adjudicative Committee examined outcomes from a sample of Australian Harness Decisions. The Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) governs these Decisions 250(1)(b), which stipulates:

“(1) A driver commits an offence if:-(b) He refuses or fails to deliver a sample as directed by the Stewards…” Penalties under this rule in Australia typically range from 3 to 5 months of suspension.

For example:

VRT v Nicholson Appeal  (March 2021) – Driver Rhys Nicholson 5 months suspension reduced to 4 months on appeal.

TasRacing v Ford (April 2016)  – Driver Mr Ford’s Licence to drive in races was suspended for a period of 3 months, which was backdated to 10 March 2016 on which date he had been stood down from driving pending the inquiry.

HRSA v C Fuller (August 2015) – failure to provide sample – Clinton Fuller had his Licence to drive in races suspended for 4 months, backdated to the date he was stood down.

HRNSW v L Booth (August 2016) – Licensed Driver L Booth’s Licence was suspended in full for a period of 6 months commencing from 2 August 2016, the date upon which he was stood down.

HRNSW v J Brown (October 2024) – Driver Mr Brown was directed to provide a second sample prior to leaving the racecourse due to the initial sample he provided being of less volume than outlined in the collection guidelines provided by the testing laboratory. Mr Brown failed to provide the second sample as directed due to a stated medical condition, for which further supporting documentation has since been tendered.  Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported to HRNSW that despite the initial sample being of low volume, analysis did not reveal any substances banned. Given the initial sample has been able to be analysed, and a negative result has been returned, no further action will be taken against Mr Brown.

[144]  In the final result, the Adjudicative Committee followed the Penalty Guide and determined a 6-month suspension to be a fitting starting point penalty.  This is consistent with the approach taken in McCaffrey. But this case has more aggravating features than were present in McCaffrey.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[145] The RIB outlined detailed aggravating and mitigating factors at paragraphs 59 to 66.  The Respondent and Mr Vince both outlined detailed mitigating factors in their submissions.

Aggravating Factors

[146]  In April 2021 and July 2023, the Respondent was charged with and admitted Cannabis following testing.  These resulted in suspensions of four and eight weeks.

[147]  Since he commenced driving, the Respondent has been tested on five previous occasions, with two positive results as described in paragraph 146. He is therefore well aware of his obligations as a Driver to present drug free and the consequences of a breach.

[148]   When interviewed, the Respondent advised that he had no intention to provide and that he would rather a ‘no sample’, than having another positive result documented on his record. This mindset must be denounced, as it undermines the policy intent behind Drug Testing Rules.  The penalty imposed must also signal to others who contemplate refusal, that there will be significant consequences.

Mitigating Factors  

[149]  The Respondent has been stood down from Race Day and Trials driving since 7 February 2025.

[150]  He pleaded guilty to both charges at the first opportunity and has demonstrated remorse.

[151]  Compelling personal issues were raised by the Respondent, which the Adjudicative Committee treats as mitigating factors.  He also raised financial impacts that will arise from a suspension and/or disqualification.  Over the past 3 plus years, he has had 387 race drives, with combined stake earnings of $556,000.  Taking into account his driving fee and percent of the stakes, potential loss of income from race driving is a genuine factor to consider.

[152]  He has indicated a willingness to seek treatment via his Doctor and participate in the ‘On Track’ rehabilitative counselling programme.

Penalty

[153]  With regards to Charge 2, the RIB has sought a 9-month disqualification and that the penalties for Charges 1 and 2 should be served cumulatively, but accepts that this is a matter for the Adjudicative Committee to determine.

[154]  The Respondent submitted that his Junior Driver’s Licence be suspended for 12 months, with restrictive conditions imposed as part of his penalty.

[155] In consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Adjudicative Committee has assessed this breach as above mid-range i.e. above the 6-month suspension starting point.  Therefore, in recognition of the aggravating factors, a 3 month uplift is applied to the 6-month suspension starting point.  In recognition of mitigating factors, a 1-month discount is applied.

[156]  Accordingly, with regards to Charge 2, the Respondent’s Junior Drivers Licence is suspended for a period of 8 months, commencing from 7 February 2025, this being the date he was stood down. In addition, see comments and conditions set under heading ‘Rehabilitation.’

DISCUSSION

Cumulative v Concurrent Penalties

[157]  The RIB submitted that the two penalties should be served cumulatively, as opposed to concurrently. The Adjudicative Committee believes that it is neither practical nor reasonable, for the two penalties to be cumulative.

[158]  Sentencing guidelines provide that cumulative penalties are generally appropriate if the offences for which an offender is being sentenced are different in kind, whether or not they are connected. In this regard, Section 2 of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that:

…whether 2 or more offences committed by 1 offender are a connected series of offences, the court may consider—

(a)  the time at which they occurred; or

(b)  the overall nature of the offending; or

(c)  any other relationship between the offences that the court considers relevant.

[159]  As the Adjudicative Committee has already highlighted in this Decision, it believes that the two breaches are linked, due to their overall nature and the timing of the two breaches.  Therefore, the penalties are to be served concurrently.

Rehabilitation

[160]  In their submissions, at paragraph 37, the RIB quite rightly pointed out that in cases of this nature, consideration should be given to rehabilitation.  The Fifth Schedule of HRNZ Rules provide that:

28A.2 An Adjudicative Committee may defer any decision on sanction or penalty, or any part thereof (other than a mandatory sanction or penalty) for any reason including that:

…(b) The person is undergoing, or is to undergo, training, counselling, treatment, or any other rehabilitative measure or …(c) Any other reason the Committee considers relevant.

28A.3 The Adjudicative Committee when making an order under clause 28A.2 may impose any condition(s) including giving a direction that:

…(b) The person undergoes training, counselling, or any other rehabilitative measure.

…(e) The person attends to any other matter or comply with any other condition(s) the Tribunal considers relevant.

[161]  In consideration of rehabilitation, the Adjudicative Committee notes that the Respondent has previously admitted two Cannabis related charges. The first in May 2021, resulted in a 4 week suspension.  The second in July 2023, resulted in an eight week suspension.

[162]  In relation to his first breach in 2021 when then aged 18 years, according to the Summary of Facts, when spoken to, the Respondent stated that he had smoked Cannabis about four days prior to undertaking the test. He stated that he has been smoking Cannabis since he was 15 years old.  That he would smoke Cannabis 3-4 times a week and that he regrets ever smoking it. In that case, some leniency was exercised by the Judicial Panel hearing that matter, on the basis the Respondent seeks rehabilitative assistance.

[163]  Furthermore, in relation to the second breach in 2023, the Adjudicative Committee also exercised some leniency, because the Respondent was seeking rehabilitative counselling via the Racing Salvation Army (Drug) service provider.

[164]  This is now the third time the Respondent has come under notice for drug-related offences, raising the question of whether rehabilitation options are viable or of value, as previous rehabilitative measures do not appear to have had the desired effect. Given the Respondent’s admission that he regularly smoked cannabis since the age of 15 and is now 22 years old, it is evident he has an addiction problem that can only be addressed by dint of him now making a serious effort to free himself of addiction.

[165]    Due to the penalty imposed for Charge 1, the Respondent will be unable to drive during his period of suspension, unless certain approvals are given by the Board.  The Respondent says, according to his submission, that he is now in the right headspace and supportive environment to turn the corner and make a fresh start, in fact he said that he commenced this journey prior to his offending on 7 February 2025.

[166]  The issue for this Adjudicative Committee is therefore, to risk affording him some leniency that will assist him to deal with his problem.  After careful consideration, the Adjudicative Committee has come to the view that he has potential and offers the Respondent a final opportunity to rehabilitate.  In that regard, he must participate in a recognised drug counselling, treatment, and testing programme.

[167]  Accordingly, the Adjudicative Committee directs, pursuant to Clauses 28A.2 and 3, that the Respondent attends and completes a counselling and/or rehabilitation program, agreed upon by the RIB and the Respondent. If the Respondent provides evidence of completion of the counselling and a clear drug test, (by means of hair follicle testing), after serving seven months of the suspension of his Drivers Licence, the final month of the suspension period will be waived, thus allowing the Respondent to resume race driving.

PENALTY AND COSTS

[168]  Charge 1: the Respondent is fined $2,500, and his  Junior Drivers Licence is suspended for a period of 6 months.  The term of suspension commences on 28 March 2025 and concludes on 27 September 2025.

[169]  Charge 2: the Respondent’s Junior Drivers Licence is suspended for a period of 8 months, commencing from the date he was stood down, namely 7 February 2025 and concluding on 6 October 2025.  Should he meet the requisite conditions set down in paragraph 167, the final one month of this suspension will be waived and the remaining 3 weeks of Charge 1 is also waived.  To be clear, his suspension for both charges will therefore conclude on 6 September 2025.

[170]  The Adjudicative Committee directs, as per paragraph 167:

1. That the Respondent attends and completes a counselling and/or rehabilitation programme agreed to by the RIB and the Respondent; and
2. That if he provides evidence of completion of the counselling / treatment and provides a clear drug test (by means of hair follicle testing), after he has served 7 months of his suspension, the final 1 month of this suspension period will be suspended.

Costs

[171]  No costs have been sought by the RIB.

[172]  Although some costs have been incurred by the Adjudicative Committee, on this occasion they are waived and as a consequence, there is no order for costs.

 

 

APPENDIX A – TABLE 1

The relative differences for each code are demonstrated Table 1 below

NZTR Penalty Provisions	HRNZ Penalty Provisions
Rule 801(2) provides that: A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to: (a) be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or (b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or (c) a fine not exceeding $50,000.	Rule 1003(1) provides that: A person who commits a breach of any Rule shall (subject to the provisions of Rule 111(1)113(5), 451(3), 507(3), 1001 or 1004 hereof) shall be liable to the following penalties: (a)  A fine not exceeding $10,000.00; and/or (b)  Suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or (c)  Disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months.
Penalty Guide	Penalty Guide
Fact dependent noting that it is categorised as being a Serious Racing Offence	R 512(2) Fails or refuses to supply the sample 1st offence – 6 month suspension 2nd offence -12 month suspension
Precedent Cases (fails to provide sample)	Precedent Cases (fails to provide sample)
RIU v  HARRISON (14.11.2019) – Track  Rider . Received 12 – month suspension (4 months suspended upon meeting conditions). RIU v T CAMPBELL (19.01.2015 ) – Track Rider. Received 9 – month suspension RIU v M G MOKA – (17.05.2012)– Unlicensed Track Rider. Received 7–month suspension RIB v A BOSSON-THOMPSON (1.11.2022) Trackwork Rider – Received a 10-month Disqualification and costs of $400. RIB v N THOMPSON (1.11.2022) – Trackwork Rider – Received a 10-month Disqualification and costs of $400. RIB v C JONES (27.08.2022) – Apprentice Jockey – Received a 7-month Suspension. RIU v AJ TAYLOR (8.01.2021) – Trainer –  Received a 12-month Disqualification RIU v WADDELL (3.12.2020) – Jockey – Received a 22-month Disqualification. Previous positive drug test to a Class A Drug.	RIB v S McCAFFREY (04.03.2024) Open Driver/Public Trainer – Mr McCaffrey failed to provide a sample. He received a 6-month suspension of his Driver’s Licence and $1,250 in costs. RIU v C KENNETT (2011) – 1st Breach – Open Horseman Licence – Failed to provide a Sample. He received a 9-month suspension and $400 fine. RIU v C KENNETT (13.09.2015) – 2nd Breach Open Horseman Licence – He received a 12-month suspension with a discount of 2 months for the period of suspension served and his co-operation and admission of the breach.