Chief Stipe

I would havd thought he hasn't done his sentencing chances much good by publicly having a go at Justice Gendall.

I guess one good thing about the JCA outcome is he won't be acting as "a lay advocate." I was reading the JCA reports today and he initially even had an oar in the Hollie Wynyard case. Actually without him she and the RIU came to a reasonable and fair solution.

But how is there a connection between that and the JCA decision? I'm surprised Comic Dog hasn't banned him but "he is good for traffic."

What he has another one? I thought it was done and dusted.

Well you were full of praise for RITA and McKenzie before the Government bailout of their insolvency. Has your "source" dried up? Or is the truth inconvenient? As for being moderated - currently you aren't. Respect that.

So any word on how much the Government is going to flick to the TAB this time? Or has a miraculous recovery occurred? Any news on Awapuni and Riccartons fund raising for the extra $6-10m each for their AWT's?

So let's make this all about you shall we Greg (or whoever you are). You wouldn't know the meaning of hypocrisy and you know full well why you were moderated. Back to the subject here - I'm concerned that someone is calling themselves Michael House when in fact they may well not be. Impersonating someone and using a real name is more important to me than your sycophantic rants. BTW how's your mate McKenzie doing?

Short Stuff has posted the following - can anyone tell me how Gendall's judgement supports that view? Also why did his QC not appear for him? Why was did he present no evidence? Was there any? The other thing no one can understand is why Gendall told my QC that “ the truth was not relevant “ then advised me at the hearing that I “ could not use the truth as a defence “ That’s a right head scratcher there because he’s effectively arguing that by signing ownership papers you surrender all your rights under NZ law, including but not limited to the BOR and freedom of speech

You haven't responded to my email.

Rule Number(s): 869(2)- Whip Regulation (b)Following the running of Race 2, the Lamb and Hayward Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren against Licensed Junior Horsewoman, Miss O Thornley, alleging a breach of Rule 869(2) in that she used her whip on more occasions than permitted by Clause (b) of the Use ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 8, the Valachi Downs, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Oatham, against Jockey (Class A), Mr R Cuneen, alleging that, as the rider of HE KIN FLY in the race, he used his whip excessively prior to the 100m. Mr Cuneen was present at the hearing of ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1(d)Following the running of Race 2, the Cochranes of Canterbury Maiden, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Oatham, against Class B rider, Mr K Asano, in that he allowed his mount HIGHLY POLISHED to shift out over the concluding stages, crowding and checking GOODANYA and inconveniencing ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 8 (Moemoea Park 1200), Information No. A12924 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant, that Ms Burden allowed her mount FLEURGUNDY to shift in near the 900m when insufficiently clear of SAINT CROIX, RUKUHIA and PALAMEDES which were all hampered ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638 (1)(d) - Careless riding; 638(3)(b)(ii) – Excessive use of whipThese two charges arise from the running of Race 8, the Te Aroha Veterinary Services 1400. Stipendiary Steward Mr Coles filed the two Information’s pursuant to Rules 638 (1)(d) and 638(3)(b)(ii) alleging the rider of MAKABAR (Mr Beemud) rode carelessly and used his whip excessively. The particulars of ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

What's more he thinks that the NZ Herald were really interested in HIS case! The only interest that rag has when it comes to racing is to run it down. Short stuff is so dumb that he can't see that. The other one provides him a forum to do it from. Go figure!

Yes well I've seen it all before with him. Even had the misfortune of being dragged into some of his previous efforts when I administered and maintained Channel X.

Would it be fair to say that Justice Gendall "dismantled" the little fella not the other way around?

Joe - I've posted the two JCA decisions. Reading these gives a different perspective to what we have been told be the defendent. NO EVIDENCE was produced in support of his demand for Gendall to be excused.

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v L Molloy - Reasons on Respondent's Preliminary Application as to Procedural Issues Delivered Orally on 30 July 2020 - Chair, Hon J W Gendall QC NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V L MOLLOY - REASONS ON RESPONDENT'S PRELIMINARY APPLICATION AS TO PROCEDURAL ISSUES DELIVERED ORALLY ON 30 JULY 2020 - CHAIR, HON J W GENDALL QC Created on 03 August 2020 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Informant AND MR LEO MOLLOY Thoroughbred Owner Respondent Information No: A8714 Judicial Committee: Hon J W Gendall QC, Chairman Mr L N McCutcheon, Member Present: Mr S Symon and Ms E Smith, Counsel for the Informant Mr Andrew Cruickshank, Investigator, Informant Mr Leo Molloy, Respondent JUDICIAL COMMITTEE REASONS ON RESPONDENT’S PRELIMINARY APPLICATION AS TO PROCEDURAL ISSUES DELIVERED ORALLY, BEFORE HEARING ON 30 JULY 2020 1. Mr Molloy made a preliminary application by email late last week that the Chair of the Committee recuse himself from participation in the hearing. He alleged that the Chair was “biased” so as to deprive him of a fair hearing. He alleged that it arose out of the teleconference designed to settle relevant issues. The Committee’s Minutes No 3 and 4 are self-explanatory. 2. After making his email claim, Mr Molloy was advised by the Executive Officer/Acting Registrar of the JCA that he was required to file a formal application and any affidavit evidence in support of it. He responded to the Executive Officer that he did not intend to do so. By our Minute No 5 dated 27 July 2020 we recorded that Mr Molloy may present his submission today prior to any substantive hearing taking place. This has occurred. He has not provided any affidavit evidence to support his claim. He said that his application concerned comments attributed to the Chair by another. 3. The basis of Mr Molloy’s claim seems to be in that the Chair of the Committee exhibited bias, and retains partiality, because he says that at the teleconference on 21 July 2020 (at which Mr Molloy was not present) both Counsel were referred to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. All Counsel were asked to consider whether any of its provisions had any relevance to this proceeding and to Mr Molloy’s defence. Mr Molloy’s claim that this was “to assist the prosecution case” is incorrect and is without foundation. 4. The primary purpose of a prehearing telephone conference is to identify and clarify relevant legal and factual issues upon which the parties may focus and which are relevant for a Tribunal (or Court) to confront at a hearing. The Committee’s Minute No 4 issued following the teleconference accurately reflects the then positions of each party. 5. During the teleconference, his then Counsel advised that the defences to be advanced included “the truth” of his statements, the protection arising out of the Bill of Rights relating to freedom of expression or opinion, as is recorded in the Minute. Both Counsel were invited to consider the legislation and reflect on whether it had, or had not, any relevance. That is a normal and usual occurrence, and one of the purposes of a prehearing conference and provides no foundation for a claim of bias. 6. Counsel for the Informant submitted that Mr Molloy has not provided any affidavit evidence and is not aware of any basis for a recusal to occur in terms of the test in Saxmere or otherwise. The Chair is well aware of the test for “apparent bias” as outlined by the Supreme Court in Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 122 [2010] NZLR 16, namely: “whether a fair minded and informed observer, having considered all the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.” 7. As stated, Mr Molloy was not present at the teleconference which involved only the Committee, two Counsel for the Informant, and Mr Molloy’s former Counsel. No Counsel has provided any support whether in affidavit or submission, or in argument for Mr Molloy’s allegations. 8. Applying the Saxmere test to the circumstances of the conference call we conclude that Mr Molloy’s claim unsupported by any evidence, is without any foundation and is rejected. 9. A second issue dealt with was our concern that any suppression orders made by a Court in criminal proceedings – we are told named “Inca” – not be breached. We have no knowledge of the substance of those criminal proceedings, or the persons charged, or the charges or any material relating to those. But we expressed concern that Mr Molloy not venture into areas that were protected by the Court orders. He assured us he did not intend to do so. But he wished to traverse his claims that the RIU’s behaviour in relation to such proceedings was “appalling” and he intended to expose, in time, the RIU for the “sham” of the proceedings. We accepted his assurance that no breach of a suppression order would arise, and we made it clear to him that he was free and able to present to the Committee whatever relevant evidence, or submission including his criticisms of the RIU, he wished. We made that comment to rebut his claim to us that “these proceedings are to muzzle me”. That was not the case and we emphasised that he could advance whatever he wished, provided the orders of a Court were complied with. We made it clear he was not to be “muzzled” in what he wanted to say. 10. Thirdly, we ruled that the proceedings be held without public or media presence. Rule 915(1)(a) provides that the Committee may conduct a hearing as it thinks fit. Mr Molloy had publicly stated on social media that he was “looking forward to having quite some fun at this hearing” and “even the Herald want a slice of the action now as this is evolving into quite a story” and “I intend to use this as a platform to divulge the truth about some rather unsavoury goings on these past few years.” We said in our Minute No 4 dated 22 July 2020 that the proceedings will be held in private if Mr Molloy’s stated intentions remain. We concluded that those remain his intentions and have advised him that he may do so, but not with a public audience today. As is the usual procedure of the JCA, any wish for media presence requires an application but none has been made. 11. The hearing of the Information and Mr Molloy’s defence will be held without public or media presence. Naturally any outcome and reasoned decision will, in the usual way, be made public. Hon J W Gendall QC Chair Judicial Committee Last updated on 03 Aug 2020 JUDICIAL DECISIONS | ABOUT JCA | NEWS | LOGIN CONTACT JCA Level 4, Baldwin Building, 342 Lambton Quay, Wellington 6011 Tel: 0800 100 313 or 04 499 1090, PO Box 25217, Wellington 6146. exec.officer@jca.co.nz

Appalling how a website owner allows this sort of behaviour to continue.

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v L Molloy - Reasons dated 3 August 2020 for Decision Delivered Orally on 30 July 2020 - Chair, Hon J W Gendall QC NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V L MOLLOY - REASONS DATED 3 AUGUST 2020 FOR DECISION DELIVERED ORALLY ON 30 JULY 2020 - CHAIR, HON J W GENDALL QC Created on 03 August 2020 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY Information No. A8714 BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Andrew Cruickshank, Investigator Informant AND LEO MOLLOY Thoroughbred Owner Respondent INQUIRY HELD AT ELLERSLIE RACECOURSE AUCKLAND ON 30TH JULY 2020 Committee: Hon J W Gendall QC (Chair) Mr L N McCutcheon (Member) Present: Mr S Symon and Ms E Smith, Counsel for the Informant Mr Andrew Cruickshank, Investigator, Informant Mr Leo Molloy, Respondent REASONS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF JCA DATED 3 AUGUST 2020 FOR DECISION DELIVERED ORALLY ON 30 JULY 2020 1. Mr Molloy was charged with a breach of Rule 810 (1) (S) (II) of the NZ Thoroughbred Rules of Racing in that: On the 13th March 2020 he wrote and caused to be published on the website RACE CAFÉ insulting and abusive words directed at Racing Investigator and Manager Integrity Assurance of the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr Neil Grimstone, namely: “Grimstone later admitted to Duncan Garner that he knew all along that Pora didn’t do it yet he was happy to lock that poor handicapped man in jail for life….because he’s a callous racist cxxt….and he’s given you dummies false evidence in this inquiry, either knowingly (which means he’s a liar) or because he’ ignorant and stupid, and is therefore liable to the penalty or penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 801(2) ….” 2. Rule 801(1)(s) (ii) provides that a person commits a Serious Racing Offence who either by himself or in conjunction with any other person, “at any time writes or causes to be written, publishes or causes to be published …any insulting or abusive words with reference to a Tribunal, NZTR, Committee of a Club, or a member or official of such body, or a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator….” 3. Rule 801(2) provides penalties for Serious Offences of Disqualification for a specified period of life, and/or suspension of a licence for up to 12 months and/or a fine not exceeding $50,000. 4. At the conclusion of the hearing on 30 July 2020, and after deliberating for some time, we found the charged to have been proven to our comfortable satisfaction and we heard submissions from the parties as to penalty. Mr Molloy was disqualified for a period on 12 months commencing on 30 July, fined $5000, and ordered to pay costs to the RIU of $7,000 and to the JCA of $3,000. What follows are the written reasons for our findings and the penalty decision. 5. We need to record by way of background, that at an initial teleconference held on 17 June 2020 Mr Molloy elected to admit the charge, in the circumstances set out in the Committee’s Minute of that date. He said that he wished to explore and provide what he said was “context” for his remarks in his submissions on penalty. Because of his admission of the charge and with the agreement of the parties the penalty and costs issues were to be dealt with on the papers. The written submissions of Counsel for the Informant were received. Mr Molloy did not forward submissions on penalty, and the following later events occurred. 6. Later, on 1 July 2020 Mr Molloy advised that he wished to withdraw his “plea” - that is, his admission on the charge. He was advised in the Committee’s Minute Number 3 that he had that option. As a consequence, a hearing date and time was fixed by agreement and after consultation with the parties, as 10am 30 July 2020 at Ellerslie Racecourse, Auckland, to enable for a defended hearing to take place. 7. We record some preliminary matters given that Mr Molloy’s later posts on RACE Café as to the charge he faced, have resulted in certain published and ill-informed comments by him and some other members of the public. First, the charges are brought by the Racing Integrity Unit and NOT by the person about whom the statements were made. Secondly, Mr Molloy is recorded as stating (as we mention in our Minute Number 3 of 22 July 2020), that he intended to “have quite some fun” at the impending hearing, and would “use it as a platform” to enquire into unrelated issues he feels he has about police proceedings called operation “Inca”. As we advised his then Counsel (who no longer acts as Counsel for Mr Molloy in these proceedings) at the last teleconference, that would only be permitted on the subject of our hearing the charge unless if it was directly relevant to the charge, and relevant to defences available to Mr Molloy. But he can advance his reasons for his views of the Investigator, and RIU provided any Court suppression orders are honoured. The matter is addressed in our reasons after the preliminary hearing on 30 July 2020, in which the application for recusal was declined. ESSENTIAL FACTS ALLEGED BY THE INFORMANT 8. Mr Molloy is a part owner of a Thoroughbred racehorse. As such he is bound by the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing. He is described in an earlier decision of the JCA on 7 May 2013 (when he admitted 3 breaches of The Rules in using insulting and abusive language directed at a senior official), as being “a determined commentator upon the administration of Thoroughbred Racing in New Zealand”. That comment equally applies to his views on Harness Racing. 9. On 30 September 2019 he received a warning from Mr M Godber, the General Manager of the RIU, for allegedly sending what was claimed to be bullying and abusive texts to an official of NZTR. He was advised in writing, “you need to take this as a warning and desist from such personal abuse and bullying in the future.” Notwithstanding that warning, Mr Molloy published through a “post” on RACE CAFÉ under his nom de plume, “Pound for Pound”, a message which contained the words complained of in the charge. The full text appeared to be directed to and very critical of police officer (s) which need not be set out further – but it contained the words about Mr Grimstone set out in para 1 above. The message was available to be read by any member of the public accessing that website, which remains the case. 10. The RIU sought an explanation from Mr Molloy on this post as it related to the Investigator, and he responded with matters he said justified his post, in particular that: “ …the RIU either lies, orchestrates evidence or is ignorant of scientific facts…. Sadly at least two of your staff are liars or incompetent and it’s time someone exposed you for what you are, inept, uneducated, bumbling fools…. Grimstone did say exactly what I claimed to Garner, and that was before he made the regrettable racist remarks about the Asian community…. Bring it on Mike, it’s about time your dirty laundry saw a bit of sunlight”. 11. Mr Molloy has been involved in the Racing Industry or Code for many years and was previously a licenced trainer. When a trainer he was charged and pleaded guilty to 3 charges of misconduct in respect of postings he made on RACE CAFÉ which were abusive and insulting of the then Chief Executive of NZTR, to which we refer in para 8 above. The Judicial Committee imposed fines totalling $1,050 and $300 towards the JCA costs. SUBMISSIONS OF INFORMANT and RESPONDENT 12. Mr Symon, on behalf of the RIU contended that Mr Molloy, as an owner, and also because he brought himself within the ambit of the Rules by posting on a racing industry website, was bound by the provisions of the Rules Of Racing. Mr Molloy contended that the Rule in question was not intended to apply to persons in his position as it was aimed at jockeys, trainers, and licensees, using insulting and abusive language to person named in the Rule. We do not accept that argument. 13. Mr Symon referred to the previous case involving Mr Molloy and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of RIU v McAnulty (29 April 2011) which highlighted that those who hold strong views or opinions about the governance of racing are entitled to make those views known without resort to personal abuse or insult. We agree, and we permitted that to occur at this hearing. 14. Apart from arguing that he was not bound by the Rules, Mr Molloy contended that the decision in Cropp v Judicial Committee [2008] NZSC 46 [2008] 3 NZLR 774 required the Rules of Racing to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights, and the Rule the subject of this Information unreasonably curtails or restricts his right to express his opinions. We accept the submission of Mr Symon that the legislation requires the Codes to promulgate Rules to regulate the conduct of racing, and the Codes are dependent on public support, through wagering. If the profession dose not impose minimum standards of behaviour to uphold its integrity, public support and confidence may be lost. Counsel referred us to a similar situation where a sport, or profession, or standards of behaviour in courts. He referred us to Communication Principles set out in s 6 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, (such as communications not being grossly offensive, indecent or obscene. And s 6(2) requires Courts and others to act consistently with the right to freedom of expression contained in NZBORA. We do not need to decide whether that Act applies to the present case. 15. We are satisfied that the restriction on certain types of behaviour referred to in the Rule can be a justified limitation of the right to freedom of speech, because without it the racing Codes and profession would descend into mayhem. But if the insulting and abusive words referred to in the Rule reach the level of obscenity, the freedom of expression available in BORA is curtailed. 16. Mr Molloy contends that what he said was true. He referred to an article, in which there is a description of the Investigators service as a police officer, in which he is reported to have made a racist comment (which he is recorded as saying it was meant to be a joke and for which he apologised). Mr Molloy’s claim is that he honestly believed that the remarks he posted afford him an excuse for the grossly obscene description of the official as a “cxxt). As we have already mentioned, in the earlier decision, fair comment or criticism of the industry, its processes, ought not be stifled. But the Rule is directed at “abusive and insulting” words towards named parties, and public excoriation in obscene terms of a named official is impermissible. 17. We make a general, but important, observation to Mr Molloy and his “supporters”. Those who wish to participate in the racing Codes, whether as licensees, owners, and otherwise, are required to obey the Rules of Racing properly laid down by the Codes. It is the same with any profession, participation in a sport or calling. For example, a lawyer or accountant or other professional is required to follow the Codes of ethics that apply to those wishing to participate in the calling, and if they decline to do so, they may forfeit the privilege of participation in that calling. Those in the horse racing arena depend and rely upon the Rules to allow and regulate their participation. If they do not wish to comply with the Rules they may of course exit from participation in the sport/industry. If the Rules do not apply to them, they may say and do whatever they wish, within the boundaries of the civil and criminal law. But they cannot expect to retain the privilege of participation without committing to obey the Rules of the Code. Legitimate comment about the operation of the Codes may occur but not with personal excoriation in obscene terms conveyed to the world at large. 18. A serious Racing Offence under Rule 801(1)(S)(II) may take many different and an infinite variety of forms. There can be situations when insulting or abusive words are directed to an official, investigator, or body referred to in the Rule, which are made in private (such as at an inquiry or on raceday when interviewed or made only to an official). They might be made in the “heat of the moment“ when momentary loss of temper or control occurs, and for which the person later regrets. At the other end of the spectrum is the publication of insulting or abusive words made against a named official in a public forum, where there is premeditation and a deliberate aim and intent to harm the emotions and reputation of a person, who is unable to respond to the harm aimed at him. So too, the type and degree of insult or abuse will vary depending on the words used and the manner of their use. We are compelled to reach the view that this charge by any measure, falls at the high end of gravity, because of the words used and the dissemination of them to the wide public at large. 19. Factors which relate to its seriousness of his actions: • the words used. “Insulting” means scornfully abusive or to denigrate or be rudely offensive. • to use abusive language is to use remarks intended to be demeaning, humiliating, mocking, insulting or belittling. It is often derogatory and obscene. • Mr Molloy chose to excoriate the official, that is to “censure, criticize severely, denounce and condemn.” • to say that “he’s a callous racist cxxt” is to belittle him obscenely. To later add that he “is a racist turd” highlights the intent behind the earlier obscenity. Mr Molloy deliberately and wilfully published his remarks on a website to which countless thousands of followers of racing, as well as the general public, had access. 20. To allege a named person is “a cxxt” (and Mr Molloy and we have no doubt what he meant) is unquestionably grossly offensive to a reasonable bystander. The noun “cxxt” is as damning as any obscenity as people could imagine. It excoriates the official in an abusive and insulting manner, in defiance of a recent warning about his use of Race Café to denigrate in obscene terms, a named official. 21. We repeat para (4) that after deliberating at the conclusion of the hearing we found the charge proven to our comfortable satisfaction. Indeed, beyond reasonable doubt. The words used and published to the world at large to publicly excoriate the official were insulting, offensive, denigrating and obscene. It is no defence that Mr Molloy held such view as they were directed at the personal character of the official and were seriously irresponsible and in breach of Rule 801(1). The use of the word “cxxt” was “insulting and abusive” at a very high level. We reject his argument that it was permissible because he had “reasons”. PENALTY 22. Counsel for the Informant, Mr. Symon and Ms Smith initially sought penalties in the range of a disqualification of 13 -13 ½ months plus a fine of between $6,400 to $6,800. Those initial submissions were made in the context of Mr Molloy’s admission of the charge and incorporated an element of discount for the guilty plea. As that no longer applied the submission, advanced was that sanctions of disqualification for 16 months and a fine of $8,000 were sought. Their submission is underpinned by the contention that unprovoked personal attacks using insulting and abusive words against racing officials, made in a public forum cannot be tolerated. They submit that there were aggravating features such as the content of the post, it was made in a public website to the world at large, despite warning within 6 months to desist, and that there had been previous disciplinary sanctions for similar offending. Counsel submit that there has been no attempt to resile from what Mr Molloy posted nor any expression of remorse or regret. And in fact his continuing to insult and abuse on 22 June 2020 on Race Café, (he ”is an ignorant imbecile actually” and “is a racist turd”) after being served with the Information, and before he withdrew his admission of the charge, illustrates, sadly a total lack of contrition, and insight, and a defiance of the Rules well known to him. 23. Counsel referred to the earlier JCA decision in RIU v McAnulty, (29 April 2011) where sanctions of 11 months disqualification, and a fine of $6,000 and costs of $17,500 followed upon that Respondent leaving a series of abusive obscene emails and voice messages with the then Chair of the NZ Racing Industry Board and the Chief Stipendiary Steward, over a period of 4 days. This was not in a public forum but directly to the individuals concerned. Counsel submit that Mr Molloy’s offending ought to been seen as more serious, having occurred in a wider publication. Mr Molloy’s position was that the insults and abuse by Mr McAnulty were far worse in their content than his and were repeated several times against 2 officials, which distinguished his culpability. We note that those insults were made on voice and email messages, and not to the world at large. They were in that sense transitory whereas Mr Molloy’s post was and remains available, and continuing, to the world-wide population of those who choose to access the site. 24. The previous offending by Mr Molloy in 2011 and 2012 involving insulting and abusive comments directed against the then CEO of NZTR for which he was fined on each of 3 charges $350 (a total of $1,050) and his refusing to heed the warning are also aggravating. It was submitted that a higher penalty is necessary in this case in order to deter Mr Molloy, and others, from this type of conduct. Counsel contended that it was clearly Mr Molloy’s “intention to continue to push the boundaries of acceptable commentary about others in the industry”, he had demonstrated by his actions that he is not remorseful. There were no personal or other mitigating factors. 25. Mr Molloy contended, as referred to above, that his behaviour fell far below that of Mr McAnulty and that a disqualification of 3 months and a fine of $5,000 - $6,000 (which he would pay to the Riding for Disabled Charity) was all that was justified. PENALTY AND COSTS 26. The need to provide a deterrent to others is important. But in Mr Molloy’s case the issue of personal deterrence is very necessary. This is because he has shown no inclination to cease personal insulting abuse and we are very concerned that he may continue to do so. As set out above: (a) He is disqualified for 12 months commencing today 30 July 2020. (b) He is fined $5,000. (c) He is ordered to pay $7,000 being a portion of the RIU costs and $3,000 to the JCA as a portion of its costs. None, or little of these costs would have arisen if he had maintained the admission of the charge, but having elected to prolong the inquiry we do not regard it as proper for the Racing Industry to bear all the costs incurred as a result of his actions. Dated at Wellington this 3rd day of August 2020 Hon J W Gendall QC (Chair) Last updated on 03 Aug 2020 JUDICIAL DECISIONS | ABOUT JCA | NEWS | LOGIN CONTACT JCA Level 4, Baldwin Building, 342 Lambton Quay, Wellington 6011 Tel: 0800 100 313 or 04 499 1090, PO Box 25217, Wellington 6146. exec.officer@jca.co.nz

Or even earned a stake! Or a restful retirement.

The question is why dont you out yourself? Instead of questioning other poster's right to anonymity. This isn't Channel X.

That's a bit rich coming from you. Greg who?

You are making an assumption that what he is posting is actually the truth. I would bet that what actually happened is he was told that he had to confine his defence to the one he was charged on. Not use the opportunity to stand on a soap box and grandstand about every other crime he perceived has happened. With regard to not using the truth as a defence again he has probably twisted things to suit his agenda. Who has seen a complete copy of the charge other than a precis from the little fella? Unless one knows then quite possibly attempting to prove someone actually IS a racist xyz may not be a defence. Anyone seen a complete unedited copy of the original post and the entire thread? Based on my past experience there tend to get edited and/or deleted.