Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 6 May 2024 – Margaret McAuley

The Respondent, Ms Margaret McAuley, is charged under the HRNZ Horse Care Regulations 2022 and r 1711 of the Rules of Harness Racing.

Rule 1711 provides:

A breach of the rules or regulations that results in a horse suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain, distress, or injury is declared to be a serious racing offence.

The HRNZ Horse Care Regulations 2022 state under the heading “Health”:

7.1.2 A horse must be provided with proper and timely management of chronic and acute injuries, conditions, and disease.

And under the heading “Accountable Persons”:

15.2 An Accountable Person in respect of a horse must ensure that the horse receives, as soon as reasonably practicable, husbandry or treatment that alleviates … unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the horse.

Rule 1001(2) states:

Every person who commits a serious racing offence shall be liable to the following penalties:

1. a) a fine not exceeding $30,000; and/or
2. b) suspension from holding or obtaining a licence, for any specified period of time or for life; and/or
3. c) disqualification for a specific period or for life

The charge reads:

“Between the 8th of December 2023 and the 13th of December 2023 at Thornbury, Southland, Margaret Chrystal McAuley, the owner and Accountable Person of the horse SKY JEWEL, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the timely management and treatment of conditions of the horse, resulting in that horse’s condition deteriorating to such an extent that the horse was suffering unreasonable and unnecessary pain and distress.

Particulars:

(a) Miss McAuley failed to have SKY JEWEL seen by a veterinary surgeon between 8 and 13 December 2023 when it was suffering chronic feet issues.

(b) Miss McAuley failed to ensure that as soon as reasonably practicable, proper husbandry or treatment was provided that alleviated unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by SKY JEWEL between 8 and 13 December 2023.”

The Respondent at a hearing at Ascot Park on 22 April last, admitted a breach of r 1711 (Information A4842). The Adjudicative Committee found this charge to be proved and after receiving both oral and written submissions, reserved its decision as to penalty.

Summary of Facts

1.  The Respondent Margaret McAuley is a 70-year-old farmer who owns and operates a 90-acre farm at Otautau, near Invercargill. She also owns a property at Thornbury, 25 kms from her home.

2.  As of 12 December 2023, Miss McAuley was the HRNZ registered sole owner and Accountable Person of 13 standardbred horses, of which five were kept at Otautau, and eight at her Thornbury property, including the unraced 6yo HRNZ registered gelding SKY JEWEL.

3.  On Tuesday 12 December 2023 a social media post expressed concerns regarding the welfare of a horse situated in a paddock at Thornbury. The owner was unknown at that stage and comment provided that the horse was suffering a severe infection, could not walk and could not access any water.

4.  An on-call emergency vet attended the horse later that evening. The vet diagnosed the gelding to be suffering severe laminitis, most likely from excessive feed, and was distressed. She also commented that due to its lameness, the horse would have struggled to get to a water source, was suffering from oedema of his prepuce, legs and ventrum, and could barely walk.

5.  The vet administered pain relief and left the gelding overnight on the advice of the Police not to euthanise until the owner had been contacted.

6.  The following day, a second vet attended the horse and met the owner, being the Respondent, Miss McAuley.

7.  The vet stated that Miss McAuley admitted to her that the horse was in “agony” and that she was very angry that a vet had been called, making multiple negative comments about the cost of veterinary care.

8.  The gelding was unable to move and was non-weight bearing on its left front foot. It was shaking and leaning back onto its hindlimbs, so much that it nearly fell over backwards multiple times.

9.  The vet stated she had great concern for the integrity of the hoof capsule on the left front leg, with bone sepsis. There was also a possibility that the pedal bone had begun to puncture through the sole, which she suspected was caused by secondary to chronic laminitis. She could not lift the right front leg to examine that in detail, but there was coronary band separation around the majority of the hoof, enough to concern the vet that the entire hoof capsule had the potential to slough off. This condition had developed over quite some time.

10.  When the vet asked when the horse had its feet last trimmed, Miss McAuley stated that horses didn’t need their feet trimmed as they wear them down naturally. She maintained that it was just an abscess that would grow out by itself, that it did not require vet treatment, and her farrier had treated the abscess recently.

11.  The vet provided options for aggressive treatment that would require hospitalisation but said that the horse was in no fit state to travel. She advised that any prognosis was very guarded however, and that due to the suffering of the horse, euthanasia was the best option.

12.  Miss McAuley opted to euthanise the horse.

13.  The horse was identified by its brand as being 6yo unraced gelding SKY JEWEL, bred by Miss McAuley.

14.  On Tuesday 19 December RIB staff, together with an SPCA Inspector and equine vet attended both Miss McAuley’s properties to inspect the remaining horses, some of which required immediate attention, and two others that were euthanised on vet advice the following morning.

15.  When spoken to Miss McAuley stated:

• The feet issues with SKY JEWEL had been caused by a very wet winter.
• Her farrier friend inspected SKY JEWEL on Friday 8 December and diagnosed an abscess which they treated with a zinc bath but then the other front foot had got worse since then.
• “I’d have given him an opportunity. Where’s there’s life there’s hope. The horse was suffering quite a bit, but pain is a part of life, like it or not …. I believe that painkillers can actually do a lot of damage”.
• She hadn’t sought any vet treatment for SKY JEWEL since it had been gelded some years prior.
• She believed SKY JEWEL was still recoverable had she been able to cart him home. She declined to get another vet’s opinion though, saying that vets are only human, and that she had learned a lot more in the world of experience.
• When told that the situation with SKY JEWEL wasn’t acceptable, she admitted, “I’d agree but that was just a bad decision that we made and everybody’s made a mistake, vets included. I’ve got no doubts about that at all”.

16.   SKY JEWEL suffered unreasonable and unnecessary pain and distress for a considerable time before Wednesday 13 December 2023, at least from Friday 8 December, due to:

1.  not receiving veterinarian treatment as soon as reasonably practicable to alleviate the pain and distress being suffered by it;

2.  Not receiving proper and timely management of acute conditions when attended to, having developed severe laminitis, bone sepsis and other feet issues.

17.  Miss McAuley does not currently hold any HRNZ licences, having held a Licence to Train and a Trials Driver Licence in 2020. She has no previous NRI charges.

Informant’s Written Penalty Submissions

The Informant submitted the importance of animal welfare to the image of the Harness Racing Industry and to the general public had to be considered. The increasing importance placed on animal welfare had been emphasised by the Judicial Committee in RIU v Alford (2021):

If animal welfare standards are not upheld in the industry and when necessary, with condign sanctions by the Judicial Control Authority, the industry cannot maintain a social licence in order to continue to operate.

Offending of this nature was said to carry with it the significant risk of adversely affecting the interests of the professional racing body. Although cases such as these within New Zealand Racing were rare, the health and wellbeing of Harness horses was of the utmost importance and concern to HRNZ and was crucial to the future of horse racing. The social licence of the Racing Industry was constantly under challenge.

The Informant identified as mitigating factors: Miss McAuley had entered an early guilty plea to the offending; at interview Miss McAuley admitted to having made a bad decision about the horse; Miss McAuley managed two properties on her own, with sheep and goats to care for as well as her horses and having lost a leg in an accident some 20 years ago, she now struggled at times with the day-to-day care of her animals.

Aggravating factors were that despite Miss McAuley being familiar with the husbandry needs of horses due to the length of time she had been involved with working with horses, she had dismissed serious health issues associated with her horse as being nothing more serious than a foot abscess. She was argumentative with the attending vet during the second inspection, being described as very angry throughout most of the conversation, and multiple times making negative comments about the cost of veterinary care.

Miss McAuley maintained SKY JEWEL was still recoverable. She had attended to the horse five days prior, and, knowing it was lame, had provided only superficial and inadequate care at that time, with no on-going pain relief or vet advice; then simply left the horse alone for the following five days until again contacted about it by a neighbour.

Several other horses had to be removed from the immediate environment to prevent similar issues arising, and two further horses were euthanised due to their age and also being unfit for transport due to similar related hoof issues.

The RIB investigation revealed evidence of real complacency being shown by Miss McAuley in the care and welfare of SKY JEWEL, along with several other horses at her Thornbury property, for example claiming that horses did not require a lot of hoof trimming, unless they had confirmation issues, as they wore down naturally.

Miss McAuley admitted the horse was suffering quite a bit but simply thought that was just part of life, and dismissed painkillers as actually being able to do a lot of damage. While Miss McAuley did assist in removing several other horses to a better environment after SPCA instruction, she was clearly reluctant to do so.

Miss McAuley had attempted to delegate her duty of care, expecting neighbours to assist with the horse’s treatment, despite them not being paid or having a formal agreement to do so, and not being sufficiently experienced or in a position to provide the level of care required.

Recent Thoroughbred welfare cases were identified to provide some guidance as to the sanctions imposed for serious breaches of the Welfare Codes in horse racing.

• RIB v Neale (7 February 2023) – a Licensed Trainer guilty of one charge of failing to provide adequate care or vet attention to a horse that was subsequently euthanised – penalty 10 years’ disqualification — 5 charges relating to horses seized by the SPCA over similar matters – penalty five years’ disqualification. Neale had left care of horses to someone else with no formal arrangement and no oversight.
• RIB v Lewis (28 February 2023) — an Accountable Person — defended hearing – failed to comply with NZTR welfare standards in relation to one pregnant mare – euthanised after vet intervention. Horse malnourished, suffering pain and distress with laminitis and severely overgrown hooves. Lewis had a prior warning from the SPCA in 2017 for similar welfare concerns over another horse. Lewis did not call a vet, relying on his own knowledge and expertise. Penalty — life disqualification.
• RIB v Marsh (13 October 2023) – Licensed Trainer guilty of one charge relating to two horses for failing to provide adequate nutrition and failure to provide adequate hoof care. Horses had been left in someone else’s oversight. Had complied with a Compliance Notice and improved the horses’ condition after RIB intervention. Penalty – 2 years’ disqualification.
• RIB v Bishop (12 September 2023) – Licensed Trainer – failed to meet the physical needs of four horses suffering dehydration, malnourishment, laminitis, parasitic burden — relied on other parties to complete checks on her horses — refused to accept culpability for inactions — did not attend defended hearing. Penalty – 10 years’ disqualification.

The Informant submitted the case was similar to Neale and Lewis in that it involved failure to provide adequate care resulting in a horse being euthanised, although it might be slightly less serious than Lewis as it did not have the further aggravating factor of the foal having also died, and unlike Lewis there had not been a previous warning for similar welfare concerns. It was significantly more serious than Marsh, where the horse survived, and the Accountable Person was compliant and improved the horse’s condition. This case was similar to Bishop as while it involved one horse as opposed to four, the consequences were more serious and like Bishop, the Respondent had relied on the involvement of other parties. The comparable cases therefore supported a penalty of 10 years’ disqualification.

The offending in this case was significant in that SKY JEWEL required veterinary treatment that should have been obvious to Miss McAuley at least five days before a vet attended the animal, and that the only vet attendance occurred after a clinic had received complaints from distressed members of the public about the matter, and not as a result of any request from Miss McAuley.

The Informant concluded their written submission by stating it was paramount to the integrity of racing that the welfare code was strictly adhered to. Offending such as this, which was published in a social media online forum undermined public perception of the sport and was totally incongruous with the values of HRNZ and those involved in racing. Any penalty had to not only demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending but also function as a deterrent to others, be they Licensed Trainers or Accountable Owners. The reputation of the Industry relied on all participants following the Rules, and breaches of contract such as these, undermined public trust and confidence and brought the Industry into disrepute.

Informant’s Oral Penalty Submissions

Mr Grimstone commenced his oral submissions by showing, without objection, two videos of the horse. He described these videos as “confronting”.

Mr Grimstone referred to the case of Lewis as being the most relevant. He submitted, contrary to the Informant’s written submission, that the current case was worse than that case. In Lewis, the 15-year starting point was uplifted to life. Lewis had a previous breach, did not attend the hearing, showed no remorse, and lied to the Investigators.

Mr Grimstone conceded that the laminitis could only be confirmed 100% by radiography and this had not occurred. The vet’s diagnosis was based on visual observation. The horse appeared to be in extreme pain and was distressed. This was due either to laminitis, an abscess, or perhaps a combination of the two. In these circumstances, he said, the person responsible for the horse should not complain about the cost of veterinarian treatment, as Miss McAuley had. He described her reluctance to get help for the horse as “out of sight out of mind”. She had delegated her duty of care to a young man who had his own issues.

Mr Grimstone closed his oral submission by stating that the Informant sought a disqualification of not less than 10 years in order to send a clear message.

Respondent’s Written Penalty Submissions

Although the Respondent had pleaded guilty, aspects of the Summary of Facts were said to contain a number of matters that were not factually correct and were not accepted. Miss McAuley admitted, however, as she did when she spoke to the RIB, that the situation with SKY JEWEL was not acceptable and that she had made a mistake.

In particular, the Respondent questioned whether SKY JEWEL had severe laminitis. Ms McGrath, the on-call emergency vet that attended the horse on 12 December, diagnosed severe laminitis and stated that all four feet were affected. It was unclear from her report whether she lifted up the horse’s feet in her examination before coming to this diagnosis (which is necessary to diagnose laminitis). Ms Smillie, the second vet that attended the horse the following day, did not diagnose severe laminitis. She suspected that the pedal bone had begun to puncture through the sole and that the horse may have secondary to chronic laminitis, but she did not lift the horse’s feet to examine them and confirmed that she was not able to make such a diagnosis without radiographs. The Respondent explained to the vet that she had assumed the swelling in the left leg was a result of too much weight bearing, not that the infection had spread. The vet responded that this was a reasonable assumption.

The Respondent also noted that Bishop was the only relevant RIB Decision where laminitis was an issue. In that case, the Informant provided imaging in their evidence to support the diagnosis.

Ms Thomas concluded this aspect of her submission by stating there was clearly insufficient proof of laminitis, and the Respondent could have challenged the charge on this basis, but in good faith she acknowledged that the condition of the horse was not acceptable and therefore had not taken this route.

The references in the Summary to the fact that there had been lack of care of other animals were also challenged. This lack of care related to alleged over-feeding.

The Respondent’s submission then outlined a chronology of events. The key aspects of this are later incorporated into this Decision under the heading “Decision as to Penalty” and are not further described here.

The Respondent disputed many of the factors identified by the Informant as aggravating. Miss McAuley may have been argumentative with the attending vet and angry, however had Miss McAuley been pleasant and agreed with the vet and was happy with the cost of veterinary care, this would not be seen as a mitigating factor. Miss McAuley still maintained SKY JEWEL was recoverable.

It was not an aggravating factor that Miss McAuley had “attempted to delegate her duty of care” nor that when removing other horses because she felt she had no choice, she was “clearly reluctant to do so”.

The Respondent then addressed the cases identified by the Informant.

Bishop had significant aggravating factors that were not present in the Respondent’s conduct. ln Bishop, the charges related to four horses, all were seized, and one was subsequently euthanised. The charges against Miss McAuley only related to one horse SKY JEWEL. In Bishop, the Respondent did not accept any culpability for her offending. Miss McAuley entered an early guilty plea and admitted on numerous occasions, including to RIB Investigators, that she made the wrong call. In Bishop, the Respondent did not show up to her defended hearing.

The Informant’s submission acknowledged that while Bishop relates to four horses and the present charge only relates to one horse, “the consequences were more serious”. This is incorrect. In Bishop, all four horses were severely malnourished, dehydrated, had laminitis and endoparasites (worms) resulting in euthanasia of one of the horses. This case only concerned one horse. It was euthanised after it rapidly deteriorated unbeknownst to Miss McAuley. It was clearly less serious than Bishop.

The Respondent submitted that the offending was more analogous to the offending in Marsh where the Respondent received a penalty of two years’ disqualification. The similarities were: Marsh, who entered an early guilty plea, was elderly and in ill health and had unsuccessfully attempted to delegate his obligations as an Accountable Person. Miss McAuley was a 70 year-old woman with one leg and a head injury who unsuccessfully attempted to delegate her duty of care to a neighbour’s son whom she understood was checking on SKY JEWEL and treating him daily. Marsh had had no previous charges brought against him by the RIB; nor had Miss McAuley. Marsh had devoted his life to Thoroughbred Racing and had a good reputation within the Industry. Likewise, Miss McAuley had dedicated her life to Standardbred Racing and had a good reputation within the Industry.

The Respondent acknowledged that her offending was slightly more serious than in Marsh as she had to have the horse in question euthanised whereas Marsh was able to rectify the condition of the horses. However, this difference was not of such a degree that Miss McAuley should receive a 10-year disqualification.

The Respondent submitted that the appropriate penalty was two years’ disqualification.

Respondent’s Oral Penalty Submissions

Ms Thomas opened her oral penalty submissions by acknowledging the videos were confronting and clearly the horse was sore. She said there was no intentional refusal to get treatment for the horse.

Ms Thomas questioned the diagnosis of laminitis, emphasising that the vets had not lifted SKY JEWEL’s feet. This condition, she submitted, should not be considered to be an aggravating factor.

Ms Thomas acknowledged that the horse was unwell but stated that the Respondent, who had a good name in the Industry, still believed the horse could have been saved. The Respondent who had trained horses in the past and had owned a trotter that won 16 races, cared about her animals.  She had seen in mid-November that the horse had an infection in its front right foot and had treated it and had thought the neighbour’s son was continuing treatment with a zinc bath. She was unaware that he was no longer living at the neighbouring property. When she was notified on 8 December there was still an issue with the horse, she had arrived immediately.

It had been too wet at the time to take the horses in the paddock back to the yard. In addition, normally SKY JEWEL was easy to catch but had not been on this occasion. However, she accepted now that she should have treated the horse herself and not relied on the neighbour, although he had agreed to give the zinc baths.

Miss McAuley’s friend, an experienced former farrier, questioned the laminitis diagnosis. He believed it was an infection, which is what she believed as well. There had been no heat in the hoof, which she would have expected had there been laminitis. The hoof that had originally been the issue had come right, however it appeared the infection had spread.

Ms Thomas submitted Lewis was not an appropriate comparator case. Miss McAuley’s culpability was not at the same level. Similarly, in Bishop, where the penalty was 10 years’ disqualification, there were four charges.

Ms Thomas concluded her submission by emphasising the early guilty plea. Miss McAuley had put her hands up and accepted her decision-making had not been acceptable.

Decision as to Penalty

The Respondent, Miss McAuley, is an Accountable Person under cl 3.1 of the Horse Care Regulations and r 1701 of the Rules of Harness Racing, being the owner of 13 registered horses. She is 70 years old and has stated that she has over 50 years’ involvement with horses as an owner, driver, and breeder. She was first licensed in 2001 when she received a Licence to Train her Own and Family horses, which eventually became unrestricted in 2012. She has also held a Trials and a Graduation Driver Licence. Since 2020, she has not held any HRNZ Licences.

The videos of SKY JEWEL are indeed confronting. The following chronology is taken from the written submissions of the parties, which were expanded upon at the hearing.

As a result of a neighbour contacting her and expressing concern as the condition of the horse, the Respondent was aware in mid-November, although at the hearing she thought it may have been closer to the end of that month, that SKY JEWEL had an infection. Together with Mr Hollis, an experienced farrier and friend of Miss McAuley, they concluded that SKY JEWEL’s front right foot had an infection and they agreed to trim his hooves on a later date. They were not able to catch the horse at that time or to lift up the hoof to examine it.

On 8 December 2023, the neighbour called the Respondent to let her know SKY JEWEL had deteriorated. Miss McAuley called Mr Hollis. When they arrived, the Respondent observed that SKY JEWEL’s right front foot had an abscess on it and its left front leg was swollen. She presumed that this was from too much weight bearing. There was no heat in SKY JEWEL’s feet, so they ruled out laminitis. A neighbour’s son and Mr Hollis treated SKY JEWEL’s right front hoof by ensuring the drainage hole was open and then giving it a zinc bath. The neighbour’s son agreed with the Respondent to continue to give SKY JEWEL’s hoof zinc baths until he recovered.

On 12 December 2023 there was a Facebook post that expressed concerns regarding the welfare of SKY JEWEL. The comment was to the effect that the horse was suffering a severe infection, was struggling to walk, and could not access any water. Later than evening Miss McGrath, the on-call emergency vet, attended to the horse and observed it was suffering from oedema of its prepuce, legs and ventrum, and could barely walk. She diagnosed severe laminitis, most likely from excessive feed, and that the horse should be euthanised. The vet administered pain relief and left the horse overnight on the advice of the Police not to euthanise until the owner had been contacted.

The Police contacted the Respondent and told her of the situation and that a second vet would be checking on the horse the following day. On 13 December 2023, Ms Smillie went to the Thornbury property to check on SKY JEWEL. The Respondent and Mr Hollis were present. Ms Smillie’s clinical notes state that the horse was shaking and leaning weight back onto hindlimbs so much that it nearly fell over backwards multiple times. The vet suspected secondary to chronic laminitis but did not lift the right front foot to examine it and stated she would not be able to confirm the diagnosis without radiographs. She had concern as to the integrity of hoof capsule of the left front foot and separation in the right front foot at the coronary band, in that the entire hoof capsule had potential to slough off. The vet told the Respondent that euthanasia was the best option and after some reluctance, the Respondent agreed. SKY JEWEL was sedated and euthanised by a local farmer by means of a gunshot.

With respect to the dispute as to whether SKY JEWEL was suffering from (severe) laminitis, the Adjudicative Committee is not in a position to determine this issue. Both parties accept that the condition can only be affirmatively diagnosed by radiography, and this was not conducted. The first vet to attend the horse has expressed the belief that it was, but this was based on a visual examination that did not include lifting the horse’s feet. The second vet did not make a confirmatory diagnosis.

The Respondent accepts the condition of SKY JEWEL was unacceptable and has entered an early guilty plea to the charge on this basis. The laminitis allegation is put aside. Sentencing proceeds on the basis that SKY JEWEL was suffering from a severe infection and in the latter stages of its life was in severe discomfort, could barely stand let alone walk, and appeared distressed. This conclusion is supported by the video evidence.

There is a clutch of recent cases under the Rule. The Informant submits that the most relevant are Lewis and Bishop, but the Respondent resists this.

The Adjudicative Committee agrees with Ms Thomas that both these cases are distinguishable on the facts and are worse examples of a failure to care for animals. In Lewis there had been a previous SPCA warning for similar offending, which involved offences against the Animal Welfare Act 1999, there was no acceptance of shortcomings, with no expressions of remorse, or insight into the offending. While in Bishop, the health needs of four horses were not met in that they were dehydrated, malnourished, and suffering from mechanical laminitis and endoparasites. In addition, Bishop, who failed to attend the hearing, had been previously investigated by the SPCA for similar offending and did not consider she had any significant culpability in what took place in relation to her care of the horses.

Two other recent cases are Neale and Marsh. Again, the facts are different to those before the Adjudicative Committee. Some aspects of Neale should be noted. There were six horses that were not cared for. One had a significant injury and Neale had left it up to an unpaid employee to care for the horses, who like Neale, lived an hour away from where the horses were left on quite unsuitable land. The horses were unattended for four weeks. The Respondent was viewed by the Adjudicative Committee to be quite indifferent as to the outcome of the charges against her. She did not make any form of response to the charges, despite being given every opportunity to do so, and showed only limited remorse. This is a more serious case than the one before the Adjudicative Committee.

Ms Thomas believes Marsh is analogous. Marsh had failed to provide two horses with adequate nutrition and hoof care. They were in a paddock which had limited grass available and there was no supplementary feed. They were in poor physical condition. Both horses had severely overgrown hooves. When interviewed, Marsh said he was not happy with the condition of his horses and was not aware of their poor condition. He had left their care to another person because he was indisposed due to ill health. Marsh immediately took remedial action and the horses improved. Marsh was of good character and the penalty imposed was two years’ disqualification, from a three-year starting point. The obvious point of difference is that the two horses recovered, whereas SKY JEWEL was euthanised. Marsh was ill; Ms McAuley is disabled but prior to this breach had complied with her obligations to SKY JEWEL and her other horses.

The parties agree that disqualification is the appropriate penalty. The Informant says at least 10 years; the Respondent says two. The decision as to penalty has to be fact specific.

With respect to aggravating factors, Miss McAuley has placed too little emphasis on her animal welfare responsibilities. She thought a neighbour was attending to the horse but made no attempt to confirm this. She did not request regular updates, for example; she just relied on him to continue the zinc bath treatment which she believed would assist with the infection. Mr Grimstone says, “out of sight, out of mind”. This observation has some force in this context. And in all fairness to the Respondent, she now accepts that she should have done better by the horse. Indeed, as was emphasised in oral submissions, she had bred the horse and had cared for it over a number of years; it is difficult to understand her complacency on this occasion.

Two further matters said by the Informant to be aggravating are not so regarded. Miss McAuley’s response to the second vet is perhaps accountable by the Respondent’s direct manner of speaking, attested to in her character references, and evidenced at the hearing. The condition of her further horses is disputed and, as this does not form part of the charge, which relates solely to the condition of SKY JEWEL, this is not taken into account.

That the omission to provide care for SKY JEWEL is out of character, is supported by the six very positive character references that Miss McAuley has placed before the Adjudicative Committee. These refer to her being a “straight-shooter” with a “no-nonsense approach” and having a life-time dedication and passion for animals. The Respondent’s ready admission of the breach, the absence of any previous breaches of the Rules over a lengthy period of years, and her personal circumstances are also mitigating factors.

The health, welfare and humane requirements of SKY JEWEL must be to the fore when imposing penalty. The obligations of Accountable Persons for animal welfare have been clearly signalled within the Industry. The health and wellbeing of Harness horses is crucial to the future of horse racing, as any derogation of animal husbandry responsibilities has an obvious potential to undermine the public’s perception of the sport. The reputation and standards of the Harness Racing Industry and its social licence are threatened by the charge that the Respondent has admitted.

The penalty this Adjudicative Committee imposes must reflect the seriousness with which the Industry takes animal welfare matters. There is a need to denounce the Respondent’s inaction and to deter others from a similar disregard of their responsibilities. The Adjudicative Committee is told that Miss McAuley intends to step away from the Industry and, having regard to her age, it would appear a disqualification of any substantial length will be such that there will be little likelihood of her re-entry. In these circumstances, specific deterrence may be thought not to be necessary.

A nine-year starting point is appropriate when regard is had to the comparator cases, the seriousness of the breach and Ms McAuley’s degree of culpability. A one third reduction is appropriate for good character and high regard in the Industry, absence of previous breaches, acceptance of responsibility, personal circumstances, and early admission of the breach. The period of disqualification is six years.

In order to provide time for the Respondent to transfer the ownership of her horses and/or to de-register them, and to make arrangements for their care, this disqualification will commence on Tuesday 4 June.

Costs

The Informant has not made any submission as to costs. Leave is given to apply within five working days from the date of this Decision and for any response within five working days thereafter.