You are here: Home / Non race day hearings / Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v K Barclay - Written Decision dated 16 February 2019 - Chair, Mr P Knowles

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v K Barclay - Written Decision dated 16 February 2019 - Chair, Mr P Knowles

Created on 21 February 2019



AND IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand





Judicial Committee: Mr Paul Knowles and Prof Geoff Hall

Appearing: Mr Scott Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, Racing Integrity Unit, as the Informant

Ms Barclay chose not to attend the hearing

Venue: Oamaru Racecourse

Date of Decision: 16 February 2019


Ms Barclay was charged with a breach of misconduct, r 303 (2) after failing to attend an investigation conducted by the Stewards. The charge related to an incident in r 4 at the Invercargill HRC meeting on the 26th January 2019. The Stewards alleged that Ms Barclay "...failed to attend the Stewards room for the purposes of an investigation when requested to do so by a stipendiary steward."

Rule 303 (2) reads:

No person or body who holds a permit or licence under these rules and no owner, trainer, breeder, stablehand, unlicensed apprentice or racing manager shall misconduct himself or fail to comply with any request, direction, or instruction of any Stipendiary Steward, Racecourse Inspector or Starter.

Evidence was heard at a Non Race-day Inquiry on the 16th February 2019 at the Oamaru HRC meeting. Ms Barclay admitted the charge but did not attend the hearing.

Mr Wallis stated that Ms Barclay was the driver of TAD LINCOLN in race 4 at that meeting. After reviewing the films of the race Mr Wallis wanted to speak with Ms Barclay concerning two separate incidents in the manner in which she drove. He asked Mr Coppins (Stipendiary Steward) to get Ms Barclay to come and see him.

In a written statement Mr Coppins said he went to find Ms Barclay but she was not on course, having taken horses back to her stable. He stated he spoke to Ms Barclay after race 5 and again prior to race 9, she acknowledged his request both times.

Mr Wallis said he tried to speak with Ms Barclay after the last race but discovered she had left the course. Later that evening (approx. 8.27pm) he posted his Stewards Report. A short while later he received a txt message from Ms Barclay saying she had forgotten to come and see him and that she would see him at the Wyndham meeting on the 31st January.

He replied that her non-attendance was not good enough and that he would talk to his superiors. He said he spoke with Mr Ydgren and Mr McIntyre and they agreed Ms Barclay be charged with a breach of misconduct.

While Ms Barclay did not attend the hearing she did have a discussion with Mr Wallis as to her non-appearance on the day. She told Mr Wallis that she had six runners at the meeting. After race 5 she took two of them back to her stables and returned to the course. She had two runners in the Invercargill Gold Cup (race 9) and a runner in race 11. She was busy with those runners and simply forgot to attend. He said she was not contesting the charge or the facts and accepted a penalty would be given.


Ms Barclay admitted the breach and it is found proved.


Mr Wallis stated that Ms Barclay’s non-attendance was a serious matter and an inconvenience to stewards on a race-day. She had been spoken to on two previous occasions in the past six months. Mr Wallis stated a Junior Horseman was suspended for a similar incident and there were two fines ($350 & $300) under the Rules of Greyhound Racing. There was no penalty guideline for this offence under HRNZ Rules. He sought a fine of $500.


Ms Barclay failed to attend a Stewards inquiry concerning the manner in which she drove in race 4. She was approached after race 5 and acknowledged the request and later prior to race 9. She had every opportunity to attend. Ms Barclay has a good record and no previous charges under the rule and accepts that a fine will be imposed. We take a starting point of $500 and give Ms Barclay credit for her guilty plea.


Ms Barclay is fined $400.

Paul Knowles


Document Actions