You are here: Home / Non race day hearings / Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J and D Fahey - Decision dated 12 August 2018 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J and D Fahey - Decision dated 12 August 2018 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Created on 14 August 2018

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Authority (Incorporated)

BETWEEN

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) - Informant

AND

J AND D FAHEY - Respondents

Judicial Committee: Mr Stewart Ching (Chairman), Mr Greg Clapp (Committee Member)

Appearing: Mr Scott Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, Racing Integrity Unit,

as the Informant

Venue: Rangiora Raceway

Date of Hearing: 12 August 2018

Date of Decision: 12 August 2018

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

1] This Information was initially laid at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 9 August 2018 and was heard as a Non-Race day hearing at Rangiora Raceway on 12 August 2018.

2] An information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Wallis, against Licensed Trainers, J & D Fahey, alleging a breach of Rule 44.1 and 62.1(dd) in that the Fahey’s failed to present the correct greyhound to compete in a qualifying trial at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 9 August 2018.

3] Mr Fahey had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted. Mr Fahey had also endorsed the information that he did not wish to be present at the hearing. This was confirmed by Mr Wallis.

4] Rules 44.1 & 62.1.dd read as follows;

44.1 - The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall present the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 44.2.

62.1 .dd - Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she fails to comply with any policy, restriction or guideline punishable by a fine of $300.00 or less.

5] Mr Wallis gave evidence that the Faheys’ had correctly nominated the greyhound CRY LONELY to qualify at the Christchurch Greyhounds Meeting on 9 August 2018. He said that on inspection to identify the dog, prior to the heat, it was established that he had in fact brought the wrong dog for the qualifying trial. Mr Wallis stated that this breach would normally be dealt with as a Minor Infringement Notice, under Rule 62.1 (cc) with a fine of $300. He said that the Stewards believed that level of fine to be excessive for a breach at a qualifying trial.

6] Mr Fahey having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

7] Mr Wallis stated that Mr Fahey, on behalf of the training partnership, had admitted the breach at the first opportunity. He stated that the normal fine for a breach of this rule, being $300, was for a race day situation. Mr Wallis submitted that a fine of $150 was more appropriate for a breach in relation to a qualifying trial.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

8] In arriving at penalty, the Committee took into consideration all factors including Mr Fahey’s admission of the breach and the fact that it was a qualifying trial. This Committee agreed with Mr Wallis that a fine of $300 was excessive for a qualifying trial. We also agreed with the level submitted by Mr Wallis and therefore determined that a fine of $150 was an appropriate penalty.

PENALTY

9] The Fahey training partnership is fined the sum of $150.

Stewart Ching

Chair

Dated at Christchurch this 12th day of August 2018

Document Actions