Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 12 November 2024 – Kevin Dell

[1]  INTRODUCTION:

[1.1]  Kevin Dell (Mr Dell) faces one charge of failing to ensure the physical and behavioral needs of the horse, MRS BIG, were met in a manner that is in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge in breach of Rule 1402(1) and (2) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing.

[1.2]  In that between 8 July and 21 August 2024, Mr Dell failed to ensure MRS BIG

(a)  Was provided with adequate nutrition resulting in the horse becoming malnourished and

(b)  Was provided with veterinary treatment as soon as reasonably practical to alleviate the pain and distress she was suffering.

[2]  Mr Dell admitted the charge based on the agreed summary of facts which is set out below.  The matter for this Adjudicative Committee is to determine the appropriate penalty.

Summary of Facts

Introduction

1.  The Respondent in this matter, Kevin Dell, is the holder of a Class B Trainers Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).

2.  He is 69 years old and has been a licensed thoroughbred trainer since 1989, previously holding an Amateur Jockey licence from 1987 until 2007.

3.  The Respondent is currently a self-employed farmer, running cattle and horses from his two properties located at Clarks Beach and Dell Road, Waiau Pa, Auckland.

4.  As of the 21st of August 2024, the Respondent was the NZTR registered owner and accountable person for six thoroughbred horses, including the 9-year-old mare, Mrs Big.

Circumstances 

5.  On Wednesday the 21st of August 2024, Racing Integrity Board (RIB) staff visited the address of 96 Dell Road, Waiau Pa, Auckland following receipt of anonymous information earlier that day reporting poor environmental conditions at the stables on the property.

6.  Upon arrival at the address RIB staff located six horses, being housed in inadequate stabling.

7.  The stabling was in a state of disrepair and unsafe, with the bedding a mixture of dirt and hay. The area surrounding the stables was sodden and filled with mud.

8.  The Respondent was advised of the reason for the visit and informed that all horses on the property would be inspected by RIB staff.

9.  Located in a box in the stables was 9-year-old thoroughbred mare, ‘Mrs Big’. As RIB staff entered the stable, they noted the smell of necrotic flesh, and the mare was seen to have both hind legs bandaged.

10.  The Respondent explained that the wounds were caused by a floating accident that had occurred in early June 2024.

11.  Upon removing the horses cover it was immediately evident that the horse was in extremely poor condition with prominent and protruding back, hip and rib bones.

12.  The mare was struggling to bear weight on her hind legs and there were several other injuries caused by the cover rubbing on her hips and upper leg area, the most notable being a large pressure sore on her left hip.

13.  Photographs were obtained of all horses at the property and equine Veterinarian Dr Neil Houston was called immediately to assess Mrs Big.

14.  Upon examination, Dr Houston stated that the mare was emaciated with a body score of 0 out of 5 on the ‘Huntington Scale’ indicating significant malnutrition. He also commented that the mare had large chronic, granulating wounds on both lower hind limbs.

15.  Dr Houston advised that the mare’s current state underscored the need for immediate and sustained veterinary intervention, improved nutrition, and dedicated wound care and recommended seizure of the horse by the RIB, advising that her prognosis remained guarded, with the primary goal being to restore her health and well-being to the extent possible.

16.  At 3.42pm a ‘Temporary Thoroughbred Welfare Possession Order’ was served on the Respondent under the NZTR Rules of Racing and he was advised that the horse would be uplifted.

17.  NZTR records detail that Mrs Big had 20 race-day starts for the Respondent for 3 wins and 1 placing. She last raced on the 9th of March 2024 at Pukekohe.

Respondents Comments 

18.  The Respondent advised that he had been treating the wounds on the horse’s hind legs with a mixture of ‘Equiderm Ointment’, ‘Wound Powder’ and ‘Tetravet Blue Spray’.

19.  He stated that he had been giving the horse ‘Depocillin’ but that the horse had not received any pain relief (‘Phenylbutazone’) in approximately two days as he believed that the ‘bute’ may have led to her loss in condition, stating that he had been weaning her off it.

20.  He stated that the mare had just started to eat again so he felt that things were picking up and she would start to gain weight.

21.  When questioned, he advised that he provided her with hard feed morning and night and that she had access to ‘ad-lib’ hay, however at the time of attendance there was nil food in her stable.

22.  When questioned regarding veterinary care he stated that the horse was under the care of Dr Paul West, but he was unable to advise when she was last examined.

23.  In speaking to the Respondent, it was evident that he failed to recognise the severity of the situation and continually blamed the neighbours for reporting him. He failed to recognise that the horse required urgent veterinary treatment and believed that he could rectify the situation himself.

Veterinarian – Paul West 

24.  Dr Paul West was spoken to on the 29th of August 2024 and advised that he last viewed the horse on the 3rd of July 2024 in relation to her leg wounds and stated that the horse was showing signs of having lost condition, with a body score of approximately 1 or 2.

25.  He stated that the leg wounds were significant, with the bone being visible on both sides of the leg and that the horse had pressure sores on her left hip and the top of her legs from lying down.

26.  On the 3rd of July 2024 Dr West prescribed 2ml/25kg of Depocillin once daily for 5 days and provided a Colix injection.

27.  Dr West was contacted by the Respondent to provide medication on the 15th of July, 26th of July and 14th of August 2024 but he was not asked to further assess the horse in person.

Actions following uplift of horse 

28.  On the 2nd of September 2024 NZTR issued a ‘Proposal Notification’ in accordance with Rule 1420 of the NZTR Rules of Racing advising the Respondent that they proposed to issue a Permanent Thoroughbred Welfare Order and provided him with 28 days to contest this.

29.  The respondent advised that he would not contest this proposal and on the 5th of September 2024 a ‘Permanent Thoroughbred Welfare Possession Order’ was issued.

30.  On the 9th of September 2024 Dr Neil Houston assessed Mrs Big and advised that, following a thorough assessment of the mare’s clinical status, euthanasia was recommended to prevent further suffering and to provide a humane and compassionate resolution.

31.  At 3pm on the 13th of September 2024 Mrs Big was humanely euthanised and a postmortem conducted.

32.  The postmortem examination of Mrs Big confirmed severe end-stage degenerative joint disease in the right hindlimb joints, specifically the fetlock and pastern joints, secondary to chronic infection and ongoing inflammation from extensive wounds.

33.  Dr Houston advised that the findings supported the pre-mortem diagnosis that the mare’s condition was not compatible with any meaningful recovery or an acceptable quality of life.

34.  He further advised that the lack of significant intra-abdominal fat also underscored the chronic nature of her emaciation and systemic decline.

Relevant Guidance 

NZTR Rule – 1402

(1) Each person to whom this Rule applies in respect of a horse must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the horse are met in a manner that is in accordance with both: (a) good practice; and (b) scientific knowledge.

(2) Without limiting sub-Rule (1) of this Rule, each person to whom this Rule applies in respect of a horse must ensure that the horse receives, as soon as is reasonably practicable, husbandry or treatment that alleviates any deficiencies in nutrition or provisions or unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the horse.

35. The NZTR Welfare Standards state that all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of the horse are met in a manner in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. The Respondent has failed to take these steps in the following ways: –

• Failed to provide the horse ‘Mrs Big’ with adequate nutrition resulting in the horse becoming malnourished.
• Failed to provide veterinarian treatment to the horse ‘Mrs Big’ as soon as reasonably practicable to alleviate the pain and distress being suffered by it.

36.  The Respondent is currently under investigation by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) for similar offending relating to his cattle.

37.  Photographs and Dr Houston’s vet report and the postmortem findings are attached to this summary of facts.

38.  The respondent has no previous RIB adjudicative history for offending of this nature.

[3]  A booklet of photographs was produced by consent and included photographs of MRS BIG, her box and the stabling area which clearly demonstrated the state of disrepair rendering the stables unsafe and the sodden, muddy area both inside and outside the stables.  MRS BIG’S bedding in her box was dirt and hay.  Some photographs were taken by Ms Fox, the RIB investigator and others were taken at the stables and equine hospital where she was removed to by NZTR.

[4]  The photos of MRS BIG in her box showed the extent of her emaciated condition, her pressure sore and bandaged hind legs.  The photos of MRS BIG’S hind legs taken at the veterinary hospital were of her open wounds as described in the reports of Dr Neil Houston.  There is one photo of her jute under cover which was stained with the discharge from her pressure sore on her hip.

[5]  Rule 801(3) provides that a person who commits a serious racing offence shall be liable to:

(a)  Be disqualified for a specific period or for life;

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

(c)  A fine not exceeding $50,000.

[6]  RIB SUBMISSIONS AS TO PENALTY

(a)  This is not only a serious racing offence but it is among the most serious of its kind and a stern penalty at or near the maximum available is appropriate for this offending;

(b)  Disqualification for life is the appropriate outcome to recognize the inherent seriousness of the offending and a strong need for deterrence and denunciation.

(c)  There are no significant personal mitigating factors that would warrant a reduction in the term of disqualification to a lengthy but finite term.

[6.2]  The penalty imposed must sanction Mr Dell’s conduct.

[6.3]  Mr Dell knowingly permitted MRS BIG’S condition to deteriorate over a number of weeks, forty-nine days in fact. MRS BIG endured prolonged and undue suffering from severe malnutrition which was plainly evident weeks prior to the RIB’s intervention. Her significant wounds were left effectively untreated with her not receiving any pain relief over at least the two days prior to the RIB attending the stable.  MRS BIG’S condition was irretrievable resulting in her euthanasia to prevent further suffering.

[6.4]  The Informant relies on the comments made by the Court of Appeal in Shailer v R NZLR (2017) NZLR 629 at (64) that “the maximum penalty has never been reserved for the worst case imaginable. It has always been available for the worst class of cases encountered in practice”.  This is one of the worst cases of animal neglect the RIB has encountered.  A penalty of disqualification for life is appropriate.

[7]  The Informant has accepted that Mr Dell has an extended career in the racing industry and has no previous breaches of the Rules or other disciplinary matters against him and acknowledged that he deserves some credit for that, although this must be properly balanced as against the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence.

[8] The Informant submits that Mr Dell’s offending is in the worst category of cases and a term of disqualification is a necessary outcome.  Given the seriousness of the offending and the potential implications of the offending on the industry’s social licence, the disqualification should be for life.

[9]  RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS

Mr Dell does not challenge the Summary of Facts.  Mr Dell was an Owner-Trainer and held a Class B Trainer Licence.  He has never been a Public Trainer.

For almost 50 years Mr Dell has been involved with horses including showjumping, amateur jockey, breeder and private trainer.  He has never had any issue with the quality of his horsemanship or care of horses until this incident arose.

On 18 June 2024, MRS BIG, was involved in a floating accident.  Mr Dell called his veterinary surgeon (Dr Paul West) to attend MRS BIG.  The vet inspected MRS BIG and dressed her wounds prescribing a course of antibiotics and administration of phenylbutazone orally.

On 28 June 2024, Dr West, was called out again by Mr Dell to inspect her wounds and he prescribed a course of antibiotics confirmed in the Veterinary Centre’s invoice in June 2024.

On 3 July 2024 after becoming concerned with MRS BIG’S lack of improvement Mr Dell called Dr West to attend.  Dr West examined her and diagnosed an infection in her wounds.  He prescribed a further course of antibiotics for the treatment of this infection.  Mr Dell says he applied the recommended dose.  Mr Dell alleged that the Vet’s last attendance on MRS BIG was on 3 August 2024.  He gave Mr Dell a 100ml bottle of the antibiotic Depocillin.  Mr Dell said he was invoiced for the Depocillin, but not the visit.  Copies of the Veterinary Centre’s statement for July and August 2024 were attached to the submission.

Mr Dell had numerous telephone conversations with Dr West between 3 July 2024 and 18 August 2024.  In response to Mr Dell’s concerns about proud flesh that was presenting when dressing the wounds, Dr West dropped a bag of copper sulphate into Mr Dell’s letterbox but never inspected MRS BIG.  No invoice was rendered by Dr West for the copper sulphate.

The antibiotic  Depocillin was prescribed and purchased on 28 June 2024, 15 July 2024, 26 July 2024, 3 August 2024 and 14 August 2024.

Mr Dell was feeding MRS BIG with hard feed morning and night and hay regularly.  All feed was stored in Mr Dell’s garage which is only a short distance from where MRS BIG was stabled.

In keeping with best practice in managing any horse with leg injuries, MRS BIG was kept in a smaller area than normal to prevent her running, thereby limiting further harm to the wounds and increasing the opportunity for the wounds to heal.

On 21 August 2024, following an anonymous report, the RIB Inspector Courtney Fox, entered Mr Dell’s property and inspected MRS BIG.  The same day MRS BIG was removed from the property after Mr Dell was served with a New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Temporary Welfare Possession Order.

On 4 October 2024 Mr Dell voluntarily relinquished his Class B Trainers’ Licence after he had contacted New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.

Discussion

Both Counsel for the Informant and the Respondent refer to the relevant purposes and principles in RIU v L (13 May 2019) at (2) and (28).  Whilst the quote below refers to Harness Racing the same sentiments and reasoning apply to thoroughbred racing:

“Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor but crucially are to protect the profession, public/industry and those who are to deal with the profession.

…..A common theme in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member.

The Tribunal must endeavor to reach a proportionate balance between:

• The public interest
• The interests of the offending member
• The interests of the professional body as a whole
• The seriousness of the offending
• Any aggravating and mitigating factors

Counsel for the Informant referred to RIU v Kerr, a case which involved a serious breach of animal welfare standards, in which the JCA observed.

“As mentioned, the need to deter others who might choose to deceive Owners or others, in the misguided view that they are entitled to operate in similar ways, is crucial.  The confidence of owners and others is the absolute integrity of Trainers in whom total trust is vested, is vital.  The sport cannot enure if Owners cannot trust Trainers… if there should be any Trainers or others who might breach these Rules, the general deterrence following from this sanction, may prevent similar abuse and deceit of helpless Owners.  It is the general deterrence principle to which we give special weight, in the sentencing balancing exercise so that any Trainer who might tend to forget to whom their duty lies, is aware of possible sanctions they might face if they transgress in similar ways, to their Owners’ detriment.”

Counsel for the Informant submitted that this case involved a serious breach of animal welfare standards.  The care and welfare of horses is critical to maintaining the social licence of the Horse Racing Industry and serious breaches must be met with a stern response.  General deterrence is therefore a particularly important consideration.  A stern response is necessary to set a clear example to others in the racing industry that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The Informant submits that this case is one of the worst cases of animal neglect the RIB has encountered.  A penalty of disqualification for life is appropriate.

Both Counsel referred to the cases of RIB v Lewis and RIB v Neale.

The Informant regarded both cases as comparable to that of Mr Dell’s case which is not accepted by Counsel for the Respondent.

In RIB v Lewis (Penalty Decision, 28 February 2023), following a  defended hearing, Mr Lewis was found guilty of a charge of not complying with NZTR Welfare Standards by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical health needs of a pregnant mare, ACANTABELLE, were met, and a second charge of misconduct by abusive swearing at an RIB Investigator.

At the time the mare was uplifted from Mr Lewis’ property, she was pregnant in a severely malnourished state, in pain and suffering from

(a)  Severe dermatopathy (rain scald)

(b)  Severely overgrown and distorted hoof growth in all four feet

(c)  Severe laminitis confirmed by x-rays, showing chronic pedal bone remodelling

(d)  Elevated inflammatory markers

(e)  Increased heart rate (likely due to underlying pain response)

The mare’s foal died during an attempted foaling due to ACANTABELLE’S “poor condition and health”.  ACANTABELLE was subsequently “euthanized on humane grounds” as she was assessed as unable to recover from the trauma of her labour on account of her poor condition.

The Committee described the offending as “failing into the appalling category taking what would have been a 15-year disqualification period to be one of life”.

A key aggravating factor was Mr Lewis’ formal warning by the SPCA some years previously for misconduct and neglect of a similar nature towards a thoroughbred mare.

Mr Lewis was fined $500 for his verbal abuse of an RIB Investigator.

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that RIB v Lewis can be distinguished from Mr Dell’s case.  MRS BIG’S injury had “a temporal link being the floating accident on 29 June 2024. She had last raced on 9 March 2024.  She was in “sound racing condition in the time leading up to the accident.”  Mr Lewis had neglected a horse over an extended period of time with multiple elements of neglect of a pregnant mare identified.

In RIB v Neale, Mrs Neale was a Class C Trainer who admitted two charges:

(a)  As an accountable person failing to comply with the NZTR Welfare Standards by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical health needs of a weanling by not providing adequate nutrition and veterinarian interventions resulting in the horse’s condition deteriorating to such a state that it was seized by the SPCA and subsequently euthanized; and

(b)  One charge of, as an accountable person, failing to comply with the NZTR Welfare Standards by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical health needs of two other thoroughbred horses in her care were met, namely not providing them with adequate nutrition, resulting in the horses’ condition deteriorating to such a state that they were seized by the SPCA.

Ms Neale had left the horses effectively in the care of Ms Beaumont who was paid for two hours a day to feed and muck out while the horses were boxed at Omoto Racecourse but there was no formal arrangement or agreement between Ms Neale and Ms Beaumont to ensure Ms Beaumont cared for the horses fed and monitored them.

Text messages exchanged between Ms Neale and Ms Beaumont showed general ambivalence regarding the horses’ welfare.

After several reports about the welfare of horses were made to the SPCA, the horses were seized due to their poor condition.  The Vet assessed the horses’ body scores between 0.75 and 1.15 out of 5, all having rain scald lesions as well.

The property was assessed as totally inadequate for six thoroughbred horses during winter who had been left in this condition likely for about four weeks.  A 7-month-old gelding with a significant injury at least a week old, was euthanized. The remaining horses were treated for rain scald and severe lice infections and returned to good health.

The Committee imposed a minimum 10-year disqualification for charge one and 5 year disqualification to charge two.  The Committee held that “the death of an animal through neglect is the ultimate breach of trust” and that Ms Neale’s behaviour demonstrated “real complacency” towards the care and welfare of the horses.

The Committee took into account mitigating factors such as Ms Neale’s poor mental health which had a causal connection with her offending for which she was receiving rehabilitative treatment and her previous good record.

The decision not to impose a life ban was due to her addressing her rehabilitation and at the age of 33 years a life ban would preclude her from future participation in the industry.

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that an aggravating factor in Ms Neale’s offending identified by the RIB was that the poor condition of the horses was due to her complacency.  Ms Neale had spoken with a vet but did not request a vet to attend the horses.  Mr Dell on the other hand, was dealing with a horse whose condition deteriorated, notwithstanding veterinary intervention.  MRS BIG was cared for daily by Mr Dell, but to no avail.

The case of RIB v Neale is not analogous to Mr Dell’s case and should be distinguished accordingly. A suspension of his licence is appropriate, given Mr Dell has relinquished his Trainer’s licence, and has a long and unblemished history in all matters equestrian.  Mr Dell’s age should be taken into account also.  Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Dell was never a public trainer, when considering the aggravating factors in RIB v Lewis and RIB v Neale, a penalty of 10 years to life disqualification would be manifestly excessive in the circumstances.  If any disqualification is imposed, it was submitted it should be no more than 2 years.

Counsel for the Respondent acknowledged the aggravating circumstances namely that MRS BIG was in Mr Dell’s care, and he had accepted that he was responsible for her care and well-being.

In Counsel’s submission, the mitigating factors in Mr Dell’s case are:

• Mr Dell contacted his veterinary surgeon without delay when “MRS BIG” suffered her floating industry.
• He had telephone contact with the veterinary surgeon throughout when he saw “MRS BIG’S condition deteriorate, he called the veterinary surgeon to examine her. Mr Dell administered Antibiotoics and other treatments as prescribed and recommended.
• When Mr Dell made further enquires with the veterinary surgeon, he was provided with a treatment but MRS BIG was not re-examined.
• Mr Dell has until this incident, an unblemished history in respect to his horsemanship. He believed he had taken reasonable precautions, but in hindsight, recognizes that “MRS BIG” should have been euthanized when her condition continued to deteriorate.
• Mr Dell is genuinely remorseful that the life of a horse in his care ended so tragically, that his acts or omissions have the potential to cause harm to the racing industry and difficulty with racing’s social licence. What has happened with MRS BIG was an isolated event in an exemplary lifelong involvement with horses.
• Mr Dell is of good character, a member of his local community at Waiau Pa for his entire life, always ready and willing to assist others in need. He has no criminal history and led a blameless life for almost 70 years until this incident.

In conclusion, notwithstanding Mr Dell’s effort to manage the injuries and treat the resulting infection, MRS BIG did not recover.  At no time did Mr Dell resile from the position that “MRS BIG” was in his care and welfare.  Mr Dell had taken reasonable precautions by asking a veterinary surgeon to treat MRS BIG.  If Mr Dell had been advised to euthanize MRS BIG earlier, he would have done so.

The facts in this matter are distinguishable from RIB v Lewis and RIB v Neale submitted by Counsel for the Informant and the penalty should be substantially less than those imposed in those decisions.

Mr Dell unreservedly apologises to the NZTR and the general public for “what has happened” and extends his apology to MRS BIG for the tragic end to her life.

[10]  CONCLUSION

No issue is taken regarding the veterinary reports in respect of MRS BIG’S critical condition, provided by Dr Neil Houston dated 23 August 2024 and the Post Mortem Report dated 13 September 2024, or the Consultation Report dated 10 September 2024 by Dr Alex Fowler.

The Photograph Booklet of photos of Mr Dell’s stable area and MRS BIG’S box confirmed the evidence of Ms Courtney Fox on 21 August 2024 that all six horses, including MRS BIG,were living in inadequate stabling in conditions that were dirty, sodden with mud and unsafe.

The photographs of MRS BIG in her stable and subsequently at the veterinary hospital confirmed she was a severely emaciated horse with prominent and protruding back, hip and rib bones.  Her hind legs were heavily bandaged.  When the bandages were removed, she had large chronic granulated wounds on both hind legs and pressure sores, in particular, a large pressure sore on a hip.  The photographs of the jute cover that had been on MRS BIG showed stains from the discharge from the pressure sores.

The Committee is satisfied that Mr Dell did not request Dr West or any other veterinarian to reexamine MRS BIG for 49 days.

The failure to obtain veterinary care for MRS BIG for 49 days was ultimately the responsibility of Mr Dell.  As a result, MRS BIG’S extreme pain and suffering continued over a considerable period of time, 49 days in fact, compounded by the unacceptable condition of her stabling area and the very obvious lack of any water or food available to MRS BIG, when the RIB inspected the property on 21 August 2024.  There are no mitigating factors relating to Mr Dell’s offending.

The Committee accepts that this is the first time he has come to the attention of the RIB, that he made an early admission of the charge and expressed remorse reflected in the award of costs sought by the Informant, which is linked to the receipt of submissions and does not include the hearing.

[11]  PENALTY

The NZTR Welfare Standards require that all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the physical, health and behavioral needs of the horse are met in a manner that is in accordance with both;

• Good practice and;
• Scientific knowledge

The welfare of the horse is paramount to the integrity of the industry.  Any departure from the welfare standards is not tolerated by the industry.

The Committee is satisfied by a wide margin that the Respondent, Mr Dell failed to take these steps in the following ways;

• Failed to provide the horse “MRS BIG” with adequate nutrition resulted in the horse becoming malnourished
• Failed to provide veterinary treatment to the horse “MRS BIG” to alleviate the pain and distress being suffered by it.

Mr Dell knew MRS BIG’S extensive wounds were infected and she was suffering from bilateral hind leg lameness.  Mr Dell also knew MRS BIG was severely emaciated, but took no steps to request a veterinarian to access and treat her over a 49 day period.  There was no evidence of either water or food available for MRS BIG when the RIB Investigator saw her in her stable on 21 August 2024.

There is no issue that MRS BIG’S condition was unretrievable.  On veterinary advice, she was euthanized to prevent further suffering.

The Committee takes into account Mr Dell’s admission of the charge and his remorse.

This is a particularly serious case resulting in extreme pain and suffering being inflicted on a horse by Mr Dell.

The starting point in this case is disqualification for life for such offending.  As the Adjudicative Committee held in RIB v Lewis, this is a case where Mr Dell has “forfeited the privilege of participation in the industry”.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied by a wide margin, that disqualification for life is the only proper sanction given the very serious nature of this offending, the potential implications for the industry’s social licence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Penalty

On the charge contained in Information No. A18531, Mr Dell is disqualified for life to commence on 12 November 2024.

The Committee makes the following orders as to costs:

1.  Veterinary costs in full of $2,280.17 to reimburse the RIB comprised of:

(a)  Treatment of MRS BIG on 22/8/24 $336.05

(b)  Treatment of MRS BIG on 26/8/24 $328.06

(c)  Treatment of MRS BIG on 3/9/24 $328.06

(d)  Veterinary costs relating to the euthanasia and post mortem on MRS BIG on 19/10/24 $1,288.00

2.  Reimbursement of Horse agistment costs paid by NZTR relating to the wound of “MRS BIG” for the period 21/8/24 – 10/9/24 $1,449.00.

3.  Legal costs incurred by the RIB to 10/10/24 only are $4,013.00.  No claim is made by the Informant for the costs of the penalty hearing as Mr Dell admitted the charge.  As is standard practice, the Committee awards a proportion only of the total costs, in this case 60 per cent, which is the usual discount, amounting to $2,400.00.

4.  Costs to the Adjudicative Committee of $2,925.00 as a percentage only of the actual costs incurred to reflect Mr Dell’s admission to the charge.