You are here: Home / Non race day hearings / Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J McInerney - Penalty Decision dated 2 April 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v J McInerney - Penalty Decision dated 2 April 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall

Created on 03 April 2019



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




JOHN MCINERNEY, Licensed Trainer, Respondent

Information No. A11010

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr M Conway, Member

Appearing: Mr K Coppins, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant

The Respondent in person


[1] Information A11010 alleges that on 27 February 2019 at the Wanganui GRC meeting, PUNCH ON RUBY, was presented for Race 1 1.9 kg under the weight recorded at her previous start on 1 February, “this being outside the accepted time frame for minor infringements.”

[2] Mr McInerney confirmed that he admitted the breach at a hearing at Invercargill on 31 March.

[3] The summary of facts states that as the weight was outside the allowable variation under GRNZ Rules, the bitch was weighed again on the day and the second weight recorded was the same as the first at 1.9 kg under her last start weight.

[4] PUNCH ON RUBY was then examined by the veterinarian and a veterinarian certificate was produced in evidence which confirmed that the dog was fit to race. She was again examined when removed from the kennel to prepare to race and was again declared by the veterinarian as being fit to race. A further certificate was produced by Mr Coppins, which confirmed the dog’s fitness to run. PUNCH ON RUBY duly took her place in the field and finished sixth of 8 runners.

[5] A kennel representative, Ms S Stone, signed the information and admitted a breach of r 45.11 and, as this was the third breach of r 45.11 within the previous 120 days, the matter was referred to the JCA.

[6] Mr McInerney did not dispute the summary other than to question whether this was a third breach in 120 days. After Mr Coppins referred to GRNZ records, Mr McInerney accepted it was indeed a third breach within that time frame.

[7] The informant submitted that the three most recent fines imposed under this rule have been for $300 and, for consistency, that a fine of no less than $300 be imposed.

[8] Mr McInerney submitted that a fine of $300 was appropriate.

[9] We are aware that the respondent has a large kennel and although this is a third breach within 120 days, it needs to be viewed in that light. Mr McInerney did not raise any mitigating factors.

[10] We agree the penalties imposed under this rule should be consistent. We impose a fine of $300 and remind Mr McInerney of his obligations under the rule.

Dated at Dunedin this 2nd day of April 2019.

Geoff Hall, Chairman

Document Actions