Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 5 November 2025 – Anthony Roberts

THE CHARGE:
Information A19857, filed by Racing Investigator, Simon Irving, alleges that the Respondent, Anthony Craig Roberts, being a Licensed Public Trainer, “failed to comply with the GRNZ Greyhound Welfare Standards and in doing so, failed to provide for the health of VAL JEWEL, a Greyhound in his care, by not physically inspecting the dog’s tail to ensure it was free from injury prior to presenting the dog to race at Addington on the 29th of August 2025”.

THE RULE:

LR22A
(1) A registered person must at all times comply with the Greyhound Welfare Standards, the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (or any Act which replaces those Acts).

Greyhound Welfare Standards (2023) – Monitoring Health

1.22 LPs must ensure that greyhounds in their care are inspected at least twice a day and prior to transport.

1.23 Greyhounds need to be protected from pain, injury and distress. The person inspecting greyhounds should note if each greyhound is:

(c) free from injury and able to move about freely.

Appropriate action must be taken to treat the greyhound if any changes in health status or behaviour are detected, and abnormalities must be recorded.

THE PLEA:

The Charge and relevant Rules were read to the Respondent and he acknowledged that he understood them. He then indicated that he admitted the charge.

FACTS:

Mr Irving presented the following Summary of Facts:

1. The Respondent, Anthony Craig Roberts, is a licensed Public Trainer under the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ). He has been a greyhound trainer since 1982.

Circumstances

2. On Friday, 29 August 2025, the Greyhound, VAL JEWEL, trained by Mr Roberts, was entered in Race 10 (2.46pm) at the Christchurch GRC meeting at Addington Raceway and was presented to the raceday vet, Dr Emma Reedy, for a pre-race inspection at the Race 10 optional kennelling, per standard procedure.

3. VAL JEWEL was presented with her tail bandaged with black tape and, while inspecting the dog, Dr Reedy could smell the distinctive odour of infection, with the dog reacting to the tail end being squeezed. Upon removing the tail bandage, Dr Reedy identified an infected tail wound with suspected sequestered bone and necrotic tissue visible. Dr Reedy completed the Veterinary Examination Form, recording an approximate 15mm x 10mm wound to the tip of the tail that was painful to the touch.

4. Dr Reedy photographed the wound and the bandage, which appeared to be a few days old. Dr Reedy cleaned and re-bandaged the wound, prescribing pain relief and anti-biotic medication. She also directed that the wound be re-examined by a vet within three days.

5. The Greyhound was scratched from its race.

6. While it is not uncommon for greyhounds to present to the races with tails bandaged, often from injury caused by a condition known as “happy tail”, these injuries are at risk of infection.

7. VAL JEWEL was re-examined by the kennel’s vet on Tuesday, 2 September, with a report detailing that the wound had good granulation tissue forming covering the bone, with no pain on palpation. Further antibiotics were prescribed.

8. Inquiries revealed that VAL JEWEL’s tail had been bandaged by Mr Roberts around midday on Tuesday, 26 August, as he was departing for overseas early the next morning. Another Licensed Person was in charge of the kennel while Mr Roberts was away, and had not inspected the tail injury or changed the bandage prior to presenting the dog to the vet on raceday.

9. The RIB’s investigation, having considered all of the evidence, concludes that the wound to VAL JEWEL’s tail had not been visually inspected for three days, in breach of the NZGRA Welfare Code.

Respondent’s Statement

10. When spoken to by an Investigator on 25 September, Mr Roberts explained that VAL JEWEL had injured the tip of her tail in training around 17 August, and was being treated with antibiotics and redressing every two days. He inspected and wrapped the tail, which was healing well, around midday on Tuesday, 26 August, as he was flying overseas early the following morning.

11. He had omitted to inform his staff member that the tail needed to be checked again on Thursday and, if the injury had not continued to heal, then the dog would need to be scratched.

Failure to adhere to the Welfare Standards and to provide proper care

12. Standard 1.22 of the GRNZ Greyhound Welfare Standards 2023 outlines the code in respect of monitoring health (see above).

Conclusion

13. Mr Roberts has no previous animal welfare related charges in his 43 years of training greyhounds.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT

Introduction

1. The Respondent, Anthony Craig Roberts, is a Licensed Public Trainer under the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ). He is also a member of the GRNZ Board of Directors.

2. Mr Roberts has admitted a charge under GRNZ Rule LR22A.

3. Mr Roberts has held a Trainer’s licence since 1982, and usually trains approximately 40 race-dogs from his “Jewel Kennels” in Charing Cross, Canterbury. He has no previous animal welfare related breaches.

4. The details of the offence are contained in the RIB Summary of Facts which has been agreed.

Penalty Provisions

5. The penalties which may be imposed are:

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 off.

Previous Case

6. There is only one previous similar case in the greyhound code:

RIB v J T McInerney (23 May 2022)

Mr McInerney defended a very similar charge of failing to comply with the Welfare Code under the then Rule 84. In this case, the greyhound had a tail injury, which was bandaged on a Sunday, prior to being transported to Invercargill the following day. The wound was not checked by travelling staff and the greyhound raced on the Tuesday, with the infected tail only being identified following a post-race vet examination, having performed poorly. When the wound was re-examined by the kennel’s vet, the decision was made for the affected part of tail to be amputated. The relevant Code of Welfare sections at that time were also similar to its current form.

In its decision, the Committee commented at paragraph 8:

Any charge involving animal welfare is a serious matter and needs to be treated as such. Having said that, the circumstances of the present case are not the worst one could conceive of. This is not a case of serious neglect but, rather, one of failing to meet, or falling short of, the high standard expected as far as the health and welfare of HOMEBUSH HERO was concerned.

In determining a fine of $2,000, the Committee adopted a starting point of $2,500, considered the Respondent’s previous breach, but not as a significant aggravating factor, and gave a 20% discount for mitigating factors.

Mitigating Factors

7. Mr Roberts and his employee have been cooperative throughout the investigation process.

8. Unlike the McInerney case, the charge has been admitted.

9. Mr Roberts operates a large kennel, with approximately 40-50 race dogs. GRNZ records detail that, in the completed 2024/25 season, he had 53 Greyhounds race for 1147 starts and 54 Greyhounds for 1064 starts in the season prior. He has no previous welfare related breaches in his 43 years training greyhounds.

10. Also, unlike the McInerney case, VAL JEWEL did not require a partial tail amputation and, upon re-examination by a vet the following Tuesday, the wound had “good granulation tissue forming and bone is covered – no pain on palpation today”. VAL JEWEL made a full recovery and has raced five times since.

Aggravating Factors

11. The care, health and wellbeing of Greyhounds is of utmost importance and concern to GRNZ. There is an expectation that an experienced trainer’s record, in relation to matters that concern welfare, should be exemplary. Mr Roberts’ omission to inform his employee of VAL JEWEL’s pre-existing tail injury, and the need for it to be inspected in his absence, was remiss.

Costs

12. As the penalty hearing has been heard on a raceday, no costs are sought.

Conclusion

13. Given the mitigating and aggravating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, especially compared to the McInerney case, the RIB submits a $1,500 fine is an appropriate penalty.

GENERAL:

Mr Irving referred to the McInerney case which, he said, bore the closest similarity to the present case. He highlighted a number of differences between the two cases as the reason for his submission that the fine in this case should be less – Mr Roberts has admitted the charge, he has no previous welfare charges and VAL JEWEL’s injury did not require an amputation.

Mr Irving referred to a significant amendment to the Rule in 2023. The current Rule refers to a a “registered person”. In terms of that wording, the employee left in charge of the kennels could have been charged. Mr Roberts, to his credit, has accepted responsibility, notwithstanding that he was out of the country at the time.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT:

1. Mr Roberts explained the “chain of circumstances” (his words) that led to this charge.

2. He and his partner were preparing to go away overseas for a “short break”, which is hard to do when one works with animals, he said. He had been aware of VAL JEWEL’s tail injury and was treating it. He had bandaged it the day before they went away, with the dog due to race on the Friday.

3. It was a “simple oversight that he had omitted to tell his employee that the tail needed to be reinspected on the Thursday. During that period, the tail had become infected. Had he told his employee, the infection would have been detected and the dog scratched from its Friday race, and not even been taken to the races.

4. He was out of the country but, as the trainer, the blame was his. He sees the breach as being a “small issue” arising out of the circumstances. His partner has “taken it to heart”, being concerned about the possible media coverage and having a welfare charge against their names. He always tries to save a greyhound’s tail as a first priority, wherever possible, he said. This situation would have been averted, had he not gone away.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

1. Licensed Greyhound Trainer, Craig Roberts, has been charged with a breach of the NZGR Health & Welfare Standards 2023 (“the Welfare Code”).

2. Paragraph 1.22 of the Welfare Code provides that “LP’s must ensure that greyhounds in their care are inspected at least twice a day”. That requirement is the crux of this case.

3. Mr Roberts is the Trainer of the Greyhound, VAL JEWEL, which was taken to the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on 29 August 2025.

4. VAL JEWEL was presented to the raceday vet for pre-race inspection for Race 10, with her tail bandaged. The vet had reason to remove the bandage and, upon doing so, found an infected tail wound, approximately 15mm x 10mm, with suspected sequestered bone and necrotic tissue visible, and painful to the touch. The Greyhound was scratched from its race.

5. Mr Roberts had bandaged the wound on 26 August, as he was departing for overseas early the next morning, leaving another licensed person in charge of the kennels. The tail injury had not been inspected or the bandage changed between then and the dog being presented to race on 29 August.

6. The tail had not been visually or physically inspected for three days, in breach of the Welfare Code.

7. Any charge involving animal welfare is a serious matter and needs to be treated as such. Having said that, the circumstances are not the worst one could conceive of. This is not a case of serious neglect but, rather, one of failing to meet, or falling short of, the high standard expected as far as the welfare of VAL JEWEL was concerned.

8. The wording of the Rule permitted the RIB to charge either the “registered person” left in charge of the Greyhound, or Mr Roberts. The Rules of GRNZ do not contain a definition of “registered person”, but it can be taken to mean a person who has been licensed or registered by GRNZ and is recognised under the Greyhound Racing Code to participate in defined roles, and is thereby subject to the obligations of those Rules. To Mr Roberts’ considerable credit, he has accepted responsibility, even though he was out of the country, after having inspected the injury just before leaving, in compliance with the Welfare Code. He accepts that the blame lay with him for not giving clear instructions regarding treatment of the wound, and he has been charged as vicariously liable. VAL JEWEL has made a full recovery and has continued to race.

9. Mr Irving referred the Adjudicative Committee to the earlier similar case of RIB v McInerney (2022). The facts of that case were similar to the present case, the principal differences being that the dog had raced, the tail injury to the Greyhound was more serious and the injury required the infected portion of the tail to be amputated. The breach was not admitted. In McInerney, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of $2,500 and arrived at a fine of $2,000.

10. The Adjudicative Committee has adopted the same starting point as the Committee in McInerney, but has reduced it to $2,000, as being a lower-level breach than in that case.

11. Mr Irving identified, as an aggravating factor, Mr Roberts’ omitting to inform his employee of the need to inspect VAL JEWEL’ s tail injury in his absence. However, the Adjudicative Committee finds this factor to be offset by Mr Roberts accepting full responsibility, or blame, for the breach and electing to be the person charged rather than his employee.

12. Mr Irving has also identified the relevant mitigating factors – that is to say, Mr Roberts’ admission of the breach, his cooperation during the investigation process and, last but not least, his excellent record – no previous welfare breaches in 43 years of training record. It has to be acknowledged that that record is quite outstanding.

13. It is also a significant mitigating factor, as stated, that Mr Roberts has accepted liability in circumstances in which he could have deflected blame.

14. For those mitigating factors, the Adjudicative Committee gives a discount from the adjusted starting point of $2,000, as above, of 30 per cent, or $600.

15. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that a fine of $1,400 will satisfy the usual purposes of sentencing – that is to say, to hold Mr Roberts accountable, to promote in him a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgement of, the offence, to denounce his conduct and to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offence.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY:

Mr Roberts is fined the sum of $1,400.

COSTS:

There will no order as to costs.