Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 12 June 2023 – Gary Fredrickson

1. Mr G Fredrickson held a Public Trainer Licence/Partnership Licence with his wife with Greyhound Racing NZ (GRNZ).

2. He has been charged with a breach of Rule 163(d) in that on or about 22 March 2023 at Palmerston North “he fraudulently completed the sale of the Greyhound HIGH VIEW NESS, by forging his wife’s signature on the required transfer of ownership form.

3. Rule 163(d) in its relevant provision, provides:  that an offence is committed if a person …. falsely or fraudulently registers or attempts to register or causes to be registered … or by way of a false or fraudulent document, statement or representation.”

4.  Mr Fredrickson admitted the charge.

Facts

5. On 22 March 2023, Mr Fredrickson and his wife partner held a Public Training Licence.  They entered into a sale of their Greyhound HIGH VIEW NESS to a purchaser for $1,000.  The couple were dissolving the partnership and retiring from Greyhound Racing and were in the process of selling and re-homing their Greyhounds.

6. The transfer of ownership papers had to be completed by both vendors and the purchaser of the animal, and then lodged with GRNZ.  The Owner Partners were estranged and could not settle on a time when they would complete the required transfer of ownership papers.  When the purchaser came to collect the Greyhound, shortly before he wished to race it at Palmerston North, he was given the completed transfer of ownership papers.  This was purported to be signed by both the Respondent and his wife.  But she had not, in fact, signed them.  Mr Fredrickson had forged her signature.  When she later advised GRNZ that she had not signed anything and complained to the RIB, Mr Fredrickson was interviewed by an Investigator.  He admitted that he had signed his wife’s name on the document to present it as her genuine signature.  He did so, he said, in order “to hasten the sale process” so as to enable the purchaser to race the Greyhound at the upcoming meeting.

7.  In his explanation to the Investigator, Mr Fredrickson said that he had done this on previous occasions when co-owning dogs with his wife and that “it was commonplace within the Industry”.  He said he had “no ill intent”.

8.  However, for whatever reason, the Co-Owner did not know, or authorise, the “creation” of her signature.

Penalty

9.  The General Penalty provisions under Rule 174 apply.  They include various options of reprimand, fine up to $10,000, suspension, disqualification, cancellation of Registration or Licence, and warning off.

10.  Ms Murrow referred the Adjudicative Committee to the well established relevant principles to be considered when applying sanctions in disciplinary cases.  There do not appear to be precisely comparable cases, although there is a Decision (T Mullany 2017) in Western Australia Greyhound Racing where a document was falsified in the registration process and the Tribunal in imposing a fine of AUD$1,200 said that “The act of signing someone else’s name is a blatant disregard for why the processes are in place”.  Ms Murrow advised that Mr Fredrickson was co-operative with the RIB when admitting the charge, was remorseful and had sought no pecuniary advantage from what he did.  She submitted that from a starting point of $1,000 fine, any adjustment upwards or downwards, was at the discretion of the Adjudicative Committee.

11.  Mr Fredrickson submitted that a “culture” had developed for he, and others, to sign some documents in this way for convenience.  He agreed that the “culture was not up to scratch”.  He emphasised that there was no dishonest intent and because it was near the last minute for the purchaser of the dog to make  nomination for racing the following week, he had acted only to “make it easier for the purchaser”.  He said that with the marriage breakdown of his partner in ownership, his action was honest in the circumstance and he had done it before, with her agreement, and no malice or harm resulted.  He said he had seen multiple times when other Licensees had done this, which he now acknowledged was a “poor culture” and accepts it devalued the integrity of ownership documents.  He contended a “warning” only was necessary as no harm occurred and essentially that the error was in form, rather than substance.

Reasons for Penalty Decision

12.  The making of a false document and submitting it to be acted upon when presented to the Registration Authority (GRNZ) as genuine is unquestionably misconduct, as Mr Fredrickson accepts with his guilty plea.  It might be an aggravating factor that he had done this before without problem, although that highlights a cavalier attitude and culture to the duties of a GRNZ Licensee. That, as he said, it was “common place” in the Greyhound Racing Industry is not only no excuse, but, if correct, reflects very poorly on the culture and understanding of some involved.  If what he says is true, it must stop.

13.  The Adjudicative Committee accepts that Mr Fredrickson had no “evil intent” to deprive the other Owner or others of any entitlement.  But such action can only be seen as intending to mislead the Registration Authority and purchaser of the true position.  That is, the Co-Owner did not sign the document nor authorise another to sign for her.  The practise, if common may lead to others, with improper motives, adopting it.  That was not the case here, but it has to cease.

14.  From a starting point of a fine of $1,000, the Adjudicative Committee incorporates in as aggravating, the fact that Mr Fredrickson has had a previous raceday breach last year, on 4 March 2022, of performing an improper act by attempting to hide the fact that a dog of his was “in season”.  This tends to illustrate a somewhat casual approach to recognising the duties of a Trainer.  That factor requires a 10% uplift.

15.  It is mitigating that Mr Fredrickson has had a long involvement in the Code, is genuinely remorseful and acted under stressful personal pressures then existing.  The Adjudicative Committee accepts that his actions, were not nefarious, nor had he had any dishonest motive, and he wrongly believed them to be permissible.  But he turned a blind eye and paid no heed to his ethical and clear duty, to GRNZ as a Trainer and Co-Owner.  Whilst on the facts of this case his deliberate actions do not reach the highest level, any participants in the Code have to understand that casual “convenient” acts of deception – if supposedly occurring, must cease and that is why any penalty imposed is required to act as a deterrent to others.

16.  Mr Fredrickson is relinquishing his Registration and involvement in the Industry.   A fine only is necessary to mark the Adjudicative Committee’s disapproval of misconduct but, as stated, more importantly to deter others.  From a starting point of a $1,000 fine, the Adjudicative Committee factors in $100 (10%) for his 2022 offence as aggravating.  The Committee allows a significant discount for, as mitigating, his genuine remorse and co-operation, lack of nefarious motivation and his personal stress.  The Committee recognises his actions were akin to foolish deception but a breach of his duty under the Rules.  The Committee fixes a mitigating discount of a generous nearly 33%.

17.  Accordingly, Mr Fredrickson is fined $750.  There is no order as to costs.