Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 29 April 2025 – Bonnie Evans

EVIDENCE:

The Charge

[1]  Information No. A16956 alleges that, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on Friday, 24th February 2025, the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 156(f)(ii) in that she “misconducted herself by using foul and abusive language towards Trainer Jonathan McInerney following Race 14”.

[2]  Mrs Evans was present at the hearing of the Information and, following the reading of the Charge and Rule to her, she confirmed that she admitted the charge.

[3]  The charge was found proved accordingly.

The Rule

[4]  Rule 156(f)(ii) provides as follows:

An offence is committed if a person (including an official):
(f) has, in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing, done something, or omitted to do something, which, in the opinion of GRNZ or the Racing Integrity Board:
(ii) constitutes misconduct or is negligent or improper;

The Facts

[5]  Mr Irving presented the following written Summary of Facts which, Mrs Evans accepted, was agreed:

The Respondent in this matter, Bonnie Evans, is the holder of a Public Trainer Partnership Licence with her husband, and also holds a Litter Master Licence, issued by Greyhound Racing New Zealand [GRNZ]. Mrs Evans is 55 years old and was working on the day as a handler for Trainer Riley Evans, her son, who has since moved to Australia to train.

Circumstances

1. On 24 February 2025, Mrs Evans was handling greyhounds at the Christchurch GRC Meeting at Addington.
2. Also handling at the race meeting was GRNZ Trainer Jonathan McInerney and his staff.
3. There has been ongoing conflict at Addington Raceway between the McInerney camp and the Evans’ camp for about six months.
4. A short time after the running of Race 14, a number of participants were in the kennel block area including Mrs Evans and McInerney staff.
5. An exchange took place between Mrs Evans and a McInerney staff member regarding what Mrs Evans had allegedly said regarding the greyhound ‘Opawa Noah’ (R Wales), who had run the McInerney dog ‘Kate Baxter’ off the track onto the grass near the 525m.
6. The staff member said to Mrs Evans, among other things, “If you f….n said that about that dog, that’s cruel and nasty.”
7. In reaction, Mrs Evans directed a tirade of language toward Jonathan McInerney including yelling and screaming at McInerny staff, that she had been accused of something she didn’t do and for them to stop lying, and said, “F..k you Jonny”.
8. The yelling could be heard in the upstairs CGRC office and by Stewards in the swab room who attended the fracas and heard Mrs Evans directing abuse toward Mr McInerney in the presence of his staff.
9. In an attempt to diffuse the situation, Steward K Carston spoke to Mrs Evans and requested she follow her out of the kennel block. As Mrs Evans was walking, she stated words similar to “Do something about it or I f…..g will.”
10. Steward K Carston challenged Mrs Evans on what she just said, who explained it wasn’t directed at her, but to Mr McInerney.
11. When spoken to, Mrs Evans explained that she got angry for being accused of something she hadn’t said and she saw Jonathan McInerney with the staff members smirking and laughing at her. In relation to what she said in the presence of the Steward, she explained that Jonathan was still laughing at her.
12. Further investigation revealed that Mrs Evans had in fact been originally misheard and therefore falsely accused.
13. Mrs Evans has been licenced with GRNZ since 2011 and has no previous NRI charges.

SUBMISSIONS:

Submissions of Respondent

[6]  Mrs Evans, firstly stated that she agreed with the Summary of Facts as presented by Mr Irving.

[7]  Mrs Evans stated that there had been ongoing friction for some time between the McInerney team and their team, with several disagreements and exchanges over time. She said the ongoing uncertainty in the future of the industry led to a lot of stress and friction within the participants, which did not help.

REASON FOR DECISION:

[8]  As Mrs Evans admitted the charge, it was found proved accordingly.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Penalty Submissions of the Informant

[9]  Mr Irving presented the following Penalty Submissions in writing:

1.   Introduction

• The Respondent Bonnie Evans is the holder of a Public Trainer Partnership Licence and also holds a Litter Master Licence issued by Greyhound Racing New Zealand [GRNZ].
• Mrs Evans is 55 years old and was working on the day as a handler for Trainer Riley Evans, her son, who has since moved to Australia to train.
• She has admitted a breach of GRNZ Rule 156(f)(ii) in that she misconducted herself when using foul and abusive language toward another Trainer in the kennel block at the CGRC Meeting at Addington Raceway on 24 February.

2.  Offending

The details of the offence are contained in the Summary of Facts.

3.  Penalty Provisions

The penalty provisions are provided for under Rule 174:

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

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

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

(c)  suspension;

(d)  disqualification;

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

(f)  warning

(3)  Any part or portion of a penalty imposed may be suspended for a time and pursuant to conditions that an Adjudicative Committee thinks fit.

4.  Precedents

There are no recent cases in Greyhound Racing similar in fact, or all of the more recent GRNZ misconduct type offences involve abusive behaviour towards Officials and assaults.

Other recent misconduct cases involving abusive language in the Thoroughbred Racing Code, have incurred fines between $500 – $600:

• S O’Malley (2024) – Stablehand verbally abusing a Vet – $600
• J Pender (2022) – Trainer verbally abusing a ‘Gap’ Manager – $500
• G Lambert (2022) – Owner verbally abusing a Jockey – $500

5.  Aggravating Factors

The volume of Mrs Evans’ remonstrations were loud enough to be heard throughout the kennel block and upstairs in the CGRC office, resulting in many LP’s, Club Officials and Stewards being aware of her behaviour.

6.  Mitigating Factors

• Mrs Evans has admitted the charge and has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation process.
• She has an exemplary record in her 14 years as a Licensed Trainer in the industry.
• Participants in the Greyhound Racing Industry are under immense stress and pressure with the imminent closure of the sport and their impending loss of livelihood.
• The investigation did reveal that there was an element of provocation in that Mrs Evans had been originally misheard and therefore falsely accused of something she did not say.

7.  Conclusion

The RIB submits that a $400 – $500 fine is appropriate, with consideration given to part of any fine being suspended per r 174(3).

Penalty Submissions of the Respondent

[10]  Mrs Evans stated that they have been under a lot of stress since the ban for Greyhound Racing has been put in place. She said they had spent over $300,000 to get their racing team to Australia, which was on 2 April 2025. Mrs Evans said that they had received no income since then and still had the care of 42 dogs at home, 4 retired and inside the house, with 38 to be rehomed, 9 dogs now waiting for over a year for re-homing to take place. She said she had called GRNZ, who would not assist financially, to look after the dogs until homes could be found.

[11] Mrs Evans stated that they were looking after the care of 42 dogs, food and vet requirements, with no income and any income from Australia, could be some time coming. She said that at the moment, their financial status was not great.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

[12]  The penalty provisions are provided for under Rule 174:

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

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

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

(c)  suspension;

(d)  disqualification;

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

(f)  warning

(3)  Any part or portion of a penalty imposed may be suspended for a time and pursuant to conditions that an Adjudicative Committee thinks fit.

[13]  Mr Irving provided some historic penalties, albeit from the Thoroughbred Code, as follows, which were of assistance to the Adjudicative Committee:

• S O’Malley (2024) – Stablehand verbally abusing a Vet – $600
• J Pender (2022) – Trainer verbally abusing a ‘Gap’ Manager – $500
• G Lambert (2022) – Owner verbally abusing a Jockey – $500

[14]  After consideration of all the facts, including the historic penalties imposed for previous similar breaches, this Adjudicative Committee determined that a starting point of $500 be adopted.

[15]  An aggravating factor to consider was:

• The volume of Mrs Evans’ remonstrations were loud enough to be heard throughout the kennel block and upstairs in the CGRC office, resulting in many LP’s, Club Officials and Stewards being aware of her behaviour.

[16]  There were strong mitigating factors to consider as detailed below:

• Mrs Evans has an exemplary record in her 14 years as a Licensed Trainer in the industry.
• Participants in the Greyhound Racing Industry are under immense stress and pressure with the imminent closure of the sport and their impending loss of their livelihood.
• The investigation did reveal that there was an element of provocation in that Mrs Evans had been originally misheard and therefore falsely accused of something she did not say.

[17]  Mr Irving asked that consideration be given to part of any fine being suspended under Rule 174(3).

Rule 174(3) reads as follows;

(3) Any part or portion of a penalty imposed may be suspended for a time and pursuant to conditions that an Adjudicative Committee thinks fit.

[18]  Taking into consideration all factors, both aggravating and mitigating, this Adjudicative Committee determined that a fine of $400 be imposed, with that penalty to be suspended for 12 months under Rule 174(3).  If a second relevant offence against GRNZ Rule 156(f)(ii) was to occur during the 12-month period, the $400 fine would be activated.

CONCLUSION:

[19]  Mrs Evans is fined the sum of $400, with that penalty to be suspended under Rule 174(3) for 12 months, from the date of this Decision.

Costs

[20]  No order is made as to costs; the hearing having taken place on a race day.