Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 28 August 2025 – Samuel Ward

Mr Ward is the holder of a Licenced Stablehand Licence. Mr Ward faces one charge of failing to take all reasonable steps between December 2024 and 18 February 2025 to ensure the physical health needs of two thoroughbred horses in his care were met:

(a) Jack Stone (NZ) 2019; and
(b) Model Aye Ford (NZ) 2012.

The Respondent has admitted the charge which is a breach of Rule 1402(1) and (2) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing.

Rule 1402

This provides that:

(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) as 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 practicable, husbandry or treatment that alleviates any deficiency in nutrition or provisions or unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the horse. Rule 1402(8) deems a breach of Rule 1402 to be a serious racing offence. Rule 801(f) is the operative Rule for imposing liability for a “Serious Racing Offence”. Rule 801(2) specifies the penalty provisions for a Serious Racing Offence which includes a disqualification for any period or for life and/or suspension from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months and/or a fine not exceeding $50,000.

Given the Respondent’s admission, the charge is deemed to be proved. The hearing before this Adjudicative Committee was to determine the penalty. Mr Ward attended the hearing in person, as did Mr Dow for the Informant, and Ms Thomas, Counsel for Mr Ward appeared remotely.

SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The Respondent, Samuel John Ward, is the holder of a Licensed Stablehand Licence issued by NZTR. He is 40 years old, born in 1985, and has been involved in the equine industry for approximately 10 years, including co-directing RPE Equine Limited along with his partner Kirstie Brown (Ms Brown).

2. The Respondent and Ms Brown are the co-owners of the following thoroughbred horses:

a. Ford Model Aye (Ford) (NZ): Retired 12 year old gelding, branded left shoulder MG, right 7/2. Microchipped – 985125000069794.
b. Jack Stone (NZ): 5-year-old colt, branded left shoulder V, right shoulder 18/9. Microchipped – 9851250000103308.

3. On 14 February 2025, the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) received a complaint regarding three horses, including two thoroughbreds and one grey pony owned by the Respondent Mr Ward, alleged to be in poor condition, and neglected while being grazed at 1442 Pyes Pa Road Tauranga.

4. On 18 February 2025, RIB investigators, along with an RIB contracted veterinarian attended the property in conjunction with the SPCA, who uplifted the three horses under the Animal Welfare Act. The horses were assessed by both an SPCA vet and an RIB contracted vet.

5. The RIB vet reported that Jack Stone, 5yo colt, was in “extremely poor body condition” with a body score rating of 0.5 out of 5, and Model Aye (Ford), 12 yo retired gelding, was in “very poor condition” with a condition rating of 1.5 out of 5.

6. The vet noted adequate water supply and safe fencing but highlighted poor quality pastures insufficient to provide adequate nutrition, concluding that the horses’ unacceptable condition was fully attributable to inadequate nutrition.

7. The vet report further stated feet were in adequate condition and neither horse showed any sign of physical injury or any condition that could be regarded as maltreatment apart from that relating to malnutrition.

8. The horses had been transported to the Pyes Pa property for grazing in early to mid-December 2024. Ms Brown stated that the horses were in good condition at that time and were in good condition during a visit to the property in January 2025.

9. Ms Brown delegated the care of these horses to Mr Ward due to her full-time commitments involved in caring for her sick mother. Ms Brown only became aware of the horse’s poor condition on 15 February 2025 as a result of social media posts.

10. Mr Ward was responsible for caring for the horses during this period, initially checking on them every two to three days prior to the SPCA’s involvement in the week before their uplift on 18 February 2025.

11. Mr Ward noted the horses’ rapid weight loss over a two-week period, despite his feeding efforts, and he consulted a local trainer who suggested drenching, which he states he performed twice.

12. Mr Ward did not inform Ms Brown of the horses’ deteriorating condition to avoid adding to her stress levels, admitting he misled her by saying the horses were “okay” when asked about them.

13. On 14th February 2025, the SPCA attended the address and issued an educational notice concerning the horses grazing at 1442 Pyes Pa Road, which Mr Ward claims he addressed by working with the SPCA inspector to establish a feeding plan.

14. Mr Ward explained that his visits ramped up to three times daily in the three days prior to the horses’ uplift. He fed them picked grass, haylage, Fibre Grow and chaff, sourced locally and from Farmlands. However, he alleges that during those last three days, unknown persons repeatedly removed the feed buckets from the paddock.

15. An SPCA vet re-examined the horses on 18 February 2025 and found them in such poor condition that they were uplifted under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, that day, before any further improvement could be assessed.

16. The NZTR Welfare Standards require that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure the physical health and behavioural needs of horses are met in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. The Respondent has failed to take these steps in the following ways:

Failed to provide their horses with adequate nutrition, resulting in both Model Aye (Ford) and Jack Stone becoming severely underweight.

Failed to adequately monitor and address the horses’ rapid deterioration in condition, despite being an accountable person under his licence.

17. Photographs of the two horses, and the RIB vet report, were attached to this summary of facts.

Mr Ward

18. The SPCA investigated Mr Ward in May 2024 after receiving a complaint about two underweight horses with cracked hooves grazing at 410 Oropi Road, Oropi. They clarified that these horses were distinct from those involved in the current investigation and were unable to confirm if they were thoroughbreds. The SPCA resolved that earlier case by issuing an educational letter, after which it was closed.

19. Mr Ward has not previously been charged with a Serious Racing Offence.

Penalty Submissions

The Informant submits:

a) While Mr Ward’s case does not fall into the category of the most serious of cases that would receive disqualification or life (as has been imposed in some comparable cases including RIB v Dell, RIB vs Lewis, RIB v McAuley), a relatively lengthy period of disqualification is necessary to mark the seriousness of the neglect and to deter Mr Ward and others from similar neglect.

b) The Informant assesses the seriousness of the present breach as falling somewhere between the penalty imposed in RIB v McAuley, where a starting point of nine years disqualification was adopted and RIB v Marsh, where a starting point of three years disqualification was adopted. An appropriate starting point in Mr Ward’s case is six years. Mr Ward is entitled to a discount for his admission and because of his clear record after being in the racing industry for over 10 years. The end penalty should be a disqualification in the vicinity of 4 to 5 years.

It is common ground that in cases involving animal welfare within the industry, the primary consideration in determining penalty are: a) holding the offending member accountable, b) deterring other members of the industry from similar conduct and c) protecting the industry’s public reputation and social license.

Respondent’s Submissions

The Respondent’s Counsel summarised the Decisions of RIB v McAuley, RIB v Neale and RIB v Marsh and compared the facts of Mr Ward’s case with each of these Decisions. There was greater culpability and consequences that flowed from the breach in McAuley, where the starting point adopted was nine years. In Mr Ward’s case, the horses were in a suitable environment and generally well cared for, only deteriorating rapidly over a period of two weeks, and the five year disqualification imposed in Neale (charge 2) was significantly higher than was due in Mr Ward’s case. A higher starting point than the three years adopted in Marsh was appropriate, as in Mr Ward’s case, the breach is only slightly more serious when all the relevant factors are considered. A starting point of no greater than three years and six months disqualification is appropriate in this case.

The mitigating factors present in Mr Ward’s case are: a) the Respondent accepted responsibility for the breach at the first reasonable opportunity, which warranted a reduction of 25%, b) the Respondent has been in the industry for 10 years, with no previous breaches of the Rules or other disciplinary matters against him. An analogy was drawn with the previous good character of the Respondent in McAuley, Neale and Marsh, which led to significant discounts in each of those cases. In Mr Ward’s case, a 10% reduction would be appropriate. Mr Ward’s personal circumstances were summarised as Mr Ward had assumed responsibility for the horses as their primary caregiver, due to Ms Brown being indisposed to do so, due to her extensive commitments caring for her unwell mother. Mr Ward was placed in the impossible situation of maintaining his usual responsibilities, ensuring adequate care of the horses’ wellbeing against the other demands in his life, which led to his failure to ensure adequate care of the horses. A 5% reduction should be available, to reflect the extreme hardship the Respondent was under when the breach occurred. A total reduction of 40% from the starting point, was therefore appropriate in Mr Ward’s case.

Principles and Purpose of Penalty

The relevant purposes and considerations are referred to in the Appeals Tribunal’s Decision in RIU v L:

“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 thread 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 endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between:

• the public interest
• the interests of the offending member”

In RIB v Harry Marsh dated 13 October 2023, the Adjudicative Committee said:

“The welfare responsibilities contained in the Horse Welfare Provisions of the Rules of Racing (Part XIV) are extensive and impose strict obligations on an “Accountable Person” so as to protect horses and ensure their welfare is not neglected. The seriousness of the performance and the obligations under Rule 1402 is highlighted by a breach is deemed to be a “Serious Racing Offence” (Rule 1402(b) and it is not necessary for an Informant to prove that the person charged intended to commit the breach (Rule 1402(a)), so liability is strict and an “Accountable Person” MUST take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical health of the horse is met (Rule 1402(1)).”

As in the Marsh case, Mr Ward has accepted that it was his responsibility to ensure the horses were properly cared for. The photographs showed the emaciated physical state of Jack Stone and Model Aye (Ford).

Decision as to Penalty

The Adjudicative Committee agrees with both Counsel that a starting point for the period of disqualification which is, in this instance, inevitable, falls somewhere between that imposed in Marsh and in McAuley. The offending in this particular case is less serious than McAuley, as the horses were not euthanised.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the poor-quality pasture was insufficient to provide adequate nutrition, and that the horses’ unacceptable condition was fully attributable to inadequate nutrition, as confirmed by the RIB vet who attended the property on 18 February 2024. The SPCA vet uplifted the horses under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 that same day, due to their poor condition.

The offending in this instance, is considerably more serious than in Marsh. There is no issue that the horses were seriously underweight and had the intervention by the RIB and SPCA not occurred, it is satisfied the outcome could have been much more severe, as the body condition scores of the two horses under the care of Mr Ward were .5 and 1.5.

Mr Ward was fully aware of the state of the horses as he claimed he had taken some steps to try and resolve the issues, whereas in Marsh, the personal factors relating to Mr Marsh affected his responsibility to properly care for the horses. The starting point in this case should be significantly higher than three years.

A discount of 25% is appropriate, as Mr Ward accepted the responsibility for the breach at the first reasonably opportunity. A further discount of 10% is appropriate for Mr Ward’s previous clear record in relation to breaches of the Rules, whilst involved in the industry for 10 years.

The Adjudicative Committee does not however, accept that any reduction in penalty is warranted for the Respondent’s personal factors in relation to Ms Brown’s unavailability to care for the horses. The Adjudicative Committee does not accept that the personal situation faced by Mr Ward, was in any way comparable to that faced by Mr Marsh.

Result

This is a case of serious neglect and the Adjudicative Committee must impose a period of disqualification to deter Mr Ward and others from similar neglect of horses. The starting point in Mr Ward’s case is disqualification for six years. Allowing a reduction in penalty of 35%, results in a disqualification of three years and 10 months.

The Respondent is disqualified from holding a Stablehand’s Licence for three years and 10 months, commencing on the date of this Decision.

Costs

The Adjudicative Committee’s usual practice is to order 60 per cent of the Informant’s costs on the basis the Informant is funded by the industry and it is appropriate that where the Informant has incurred costs, the Respondent bears some of the cost of the proceedings. The application is not opposed by Mr Ward’s Counsel. The Informant’s total costs to date, which do not include the costs of Counsel attending the hearing, are $2,220.75.  Accordingly, there will be an order for costs of $1,332.45.