curious

Oh good work!

I've already almost written my response, so will get it up in due course. Was trying to decide whether to send it to the RIB and NZTR or post it on social media. I doubt it will get a response from authorities though. I think I've already articulated my reaction to this sort of behaviour anyway.

OK. I'll put a quick initial response here, hopefully critical but constructive. Probably won't bother with any formal channels.

I thought you just suggested that we should respond through existing official channels?

Who are they? And where on earth did you get the idea that I am the least bit worried about what anyone might do to me?

Most have long since given up on those avenues. Years, if not decades ago.

Yep. And the JCA (McKechnie in particular) had continually tried to point out to the RIU in pre-hearing meetings in that case that the rules of racing can't over-ride existing human rights law, so expressing subjective or factually supported opinions has to be OK whether they like the criticism or not.

Might be time to get out. I'm a contrarian. Wasn't it after the battle of Waterloo that Rothschild said something like, the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets even if it's your own?

Not in my view. They have got better at discontinuing meetings when tracks prove unsafe, but not much at determining they are unsafe before sending horses and riders out to test them at racing speeds and conditions. What do you think?

Not sure. What do you reckon? Sell half maybe?

Hailey’s brave act before death The day before Hailey’s death, his friend was seriously injured by a horse kick at the Waipā trials at the Te Awamutu track. Hailey and another young apprentice quickly jumped to his aid. “They were first there and they were sorting out [his] gear and making sure his car got home,” horse trainer Shaun Phelan, from Phelan Racing, told the Herald. “I think that might have been quite significant to what happened the next day, maybe why he was out doing what he was doing.” Ngakau Hailey. Photo / Kenton Wright Phelan said he understood that Hailey was set to see the injured rider on the day of his death. At the end of the trials, Hailey walked out. “We had a joke and yeah, that’s probably the last memory we had of him.” ‘Huge love for the horse’ Phelan told the Herald that the teenager had ridden for him a lot over the years and described Hailey as a very talented and natural rider. “I think he had a huge love for the horse. “It was very easy for him. He could ride horses that were probably difficult for other riders, let alone a young rider. He made it look easy.” Phelan said the teenager was polite and mature beyond his years. “The first thing you’d say about him is he’d always be smiling, and what I loved about him is when he would come up and introduce himself to someone, he’d say his name and he’d shake their hand and look them in the eye. “I thought it was pretty unique, kids just don’t do that. I can remember he’d walk away and people would go, ‘Jeez, I like that boy.’” The young jockey spent a lot of time down the East Coast with Phelan’s relations, the trainer said. “It was quite amazing that we sort of worked out that he was a family connection. “We came from similar backgrounds ... I always looked out for him, and obviously I used to ride before I was a trainer, so I always give him guidance. “He was a typical Kiwi boy, young Māori boy, he loved his pig and deer hunting.” Horse racing community rallies The young jockey was going to ride Gone Fission in race one at Cambridge yesterday, and had rides locked in at Ruakaka for Saturday. Before the first race in Cambridge, a moment of silence was held, and competitors wore black armbands in tribute to Hailey. “His boss, who he was [an] apprentice to, Debbie Sanders, had horses running, it was quite special to dedicate it to him. “It was quite surreal before the first race going into the jockey’s room and all that. It’s all they’re thinking about is Ngakau." “We had an angel riding with us”, another horse trainer at the race said as he acknowledged Hailey’s tragic absence. Lynsey Satherley. Photo / NZTR At yesterday’s race four at Cambridge, an emotional competitor, Lynsey Satherley, gave a salute to the stars as she crossed the line in tribute to her late colleague. Race caller George Simon gave another tribute after the last race wrapped up. “Well done to all involved here at Cambridge for getting through the day under very trying circumstances. “Our thoughts and condolences [are] obviously with the family. I know it would have been very tough for all of them out there today.” At today’s race four at Cambridge, emotional competitors acknowledged the 18-year-old. Photo / NZTR NZTR’s head of licensing and registrations, Matthew Williamson, said the news brought great sadness to all corners of the industry. “This is an incredibly sad time for New Zealand racing. Ngakau had a bright future ahead of him, and his passing is a heartbreaking loss. “On behalf of everyone at NZTR and across the wider industry, we extend our deepest condolences to Ngakau’s family, friends, and the many people who knew and rode alongside him. We will ensure support is available to those who need it,” Williamson said. A Givealittle page has been set up by a close friend to support his family through the tragedy and help pay for funeral costs. Photo / Givealittle A Givealittle page has been set up by a close friend to support his family through the tragedy and help pay for funeral costs. “A naturally gifted young man with a bright future taken away from us so soon,” the page said. It has already raised more than $19,000.

And this as a reminder at least of the issues. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/71565798/new-zealand-jockeys-horses-at-risk-over-state-of-racetracks

I probably do but can't locate it quickly though I agree it is relevant here, 10 years later. I did find this though which pretty much sums it up. NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V K MORTON - COSTS DECISION DATED 8 OCTOBER 2015 - CHAIR, MR M MCKECHNIE Created on 12 October 2015 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (the RIU) INFORMANT KEVIN MORTON, Licensed Trainer DEFENDANT Judicial Committee: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman & Mr Richard Seabrook, Committee Member Present: Mr Steve Symon, Counsel for RIU Mr Bryan Oliver Mr Paul Dale, Counsel for Mr Morton Mr Greg Purcell Mr Kevin Morton Ms Philippa Kinsey, Registrar DECISION OF NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AS TO COSTS COSTS DECISION DATED THIS 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In the written decision of the Non-Raceday Judicial Committee dated 8 September 2015 both parties were invited to file submissions on the issue of costs. These have now been received. In each case they are comprehensive. Mr Dale has filed a submission in reply to that received on behalf of the Informant. Reply submissions were not spoken of in the Committee’s direction as to costs in the decision of 8 September 2015. The reply submissions have been considered by the Committee.Https://bitofayarn.com 1.2 The Rules of Racing provide by Rule 920(3) as follows: The Judicial Committee may order that all or any of the costs and expenses of: (a) any party to the hearing; (b) any other person granted permission to be heard at the hearing by direction of the Judicial Committee; (c) NZTA and/or any employee or officer thereof; and (d) the Judicial Control Authority and the Judicial Committee be paid by such person or body as it thinks fit[…]. The Committee has a wide discretion and the rule itself provides little guidance. 1.3 The decision of the Non-Raceday Judicial Committee in NZTR v McAnulty, 29 April 2011 contains a detailed and helpful analysis of how a Committee might approach the application of Rule 920(3). The relevant passage in the decision in NZTR v McAnulty is as follows: Rule 920(3) provides that the Judicial Committee may order that all or any of the costs and expenses of the NZTR and/or any employee thereof and the Judicial Control Authority and the Judicial Committee be paid by such person as it thinks fit. The discretion to award costs under the Rule is on its face unqualified but obviously is required to be exercised on a principled basis. In New Zealand bodies such as NZTR and the Judicial Control Authority are funded by allocations from the New Zealand Racing Board, and in the case of NZTR, partly from fees and levies. Those funds are utilised to meet expenses incurred whenever it becomes necessary to take proceedings against those bound by the Rules who breach them. Unless adequate and effective steps are taken to recover those expenses, the utilisation of funds for disciplinary purposes is inevitably at the expense of the Judicial Control Authority’s and NZTR’s other activities in relation to the racing industry. On the face of it there seems no compelling reason in principle why those whose conduct has led to the institution of disciplinary procedures should not, within limits, bear the expense of those procedures if they are ultimately found to have breached the Rules as charged. Obviously given the nature and intended width of the discretion conferred by Rule 920(3) that factor will not necessarily be the only consideration to be brought to account in deciding to award costs and fixing the quantum in any case, but there seems no reason why that should not be the starting point for the exercise of the discretion in any given instance. 1.4 In this Committee’s view the reasoning set out above has equal application when a charge laid under the Rules of Racing has not been made out and proved. 2 THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST MR MORTON 2.1 Two (2) informations were laid under Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) alleging the commission of two serious racing offences. The curious circumstances leading to the laying of the second information with reference to Mr Purcell are set out in the decision of the Committee of 8 September 2015. Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) is framed to address inappropriate behaviour of the worst kind. That is plain from the penalty provisions in Rule 801(2). Given how persons accused of abusive behaviour have previously been prosecuted: refer Third Minute of the Committee dated 28 July 2015, the laying of the informations in this case under Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) was plainly inconsistent with the approach previously adopted by the RIU. The evidence to support the allegations of behaviour constituting serious racing offences bordered on the hopeless. Both informations were dismissed. 2.2 After many months alternative informations were laid by the Informant under Rule 340. That is known as The Misconduct Rule. This is the rule under which the Informant ought to have proceeded throughout. For reasons explained in the decision of 8 September 2015 the Committee held that what was alleged against Mr Morton did not involve language that was insulting or abusive or which called into question the integrity of the persons about whom he spoke. The misconduct charges were dismissed. 3. SUBMISSIONS FOR MR MORTON 3.1 Mr Dale submitted that the Committee should be guided by the High Court Rules. It is said that a 2B basis is appropriate. 3.2 Following reference to the High Court Rules there is a submission for Mr Morton that he should have increased or indemnity costs. The Committee was furnished with a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] 3 NZLR 400. The Committee has carefully considered that judgment and also the judgment of Harrison J at first instance. 3.3 The costs calculated on a 2B basis under the High Court Rules come to $19,104.00. There are disbursements for the witness Mr Gardner totally $668.00. Mr Dale advised the Committee that the actual legal costs incurred by Mr Morton were $20,094.59. Mr Morton makes no claim for costs incurred before Mr Dale was instructed. 3.4 Mr Dale in his first submission indicated that he was not aware of any precedent by Non-Raceday Judicial Committees or Appeal Tribunals as to how costs were to be set. There are in fact a number of decisions which give some assistance. Some of these are referred to in the submissions filed for the RIU. They are known to the Committee. Reference NZTR v McAnulty in paragraph 1.3 and those decisions set out in paragraph 4.3 below. 3.5 Mr Dale in his reply submission pointed to a posting by the RIU on its website following the decision of the Committee on 8 September 2015. Mr Dale submitted with reference to that posting “the message may not necessarily have got through to the RIU”. The Committee declines to make any comment whatever in relation to the website posting by the RIU. 4 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RIU 4.1 Mr Symon first submitted that there is no presumption that costs will be awarded in favour of a successful party. While there is nothing in the relevant rule to suggest that costs must follow the Committee’s determination it has long been the practice of Non-Raceday Judicial Committees and Appeal Tribunals to make costs awards where the circumstances are thought to be appropriate. 4.2 The RIU submissions then make reference to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. That is a restrictive piece of legislation and is of little assistance. There is then reference to the District Court Rules 2014. It is contended that the nature of the proceeding against Mr Morton bears better comparison to proceedings in the District Court than proceedings in the High Court. There is some force in that submission. The facts in this case were comparatively straight forward. No involved legal issues were presented. Regrettably however a good deal of irrelevant evidence was tendered and ruled inadmissible. 4.3 Mr Symon drew attention to a number of contemporary relevant decisions in thoroughbred and harness racing. These are: • Butcher v RIU, 21 December 2011 • RIU v Fisher, Macrae & Faber, 2 September 2014 • Sir Patrick & Lady Hogan & Walker V RIU, 22 April 2015 • McDonald & Donaldson v RIU, 7 August 2015 The Committee is familiar with the decisions just referred to and indeed the Chairman had an involvement in three of the decisions set out above. 4.4 Mr Symon with reference to the decision of the Appeals Tribunal in Butcher v RIU 21 December 2011 drew attention to a judgment of Devlin LJ, as he then was which made a distinction between costs in civil litigation where parties act in their own interests and costs where a prosecutor is fulfilling a statutory function. The learned Judge was of the view that costs against a prosecutor fulfilling a statutory functions should not be at the same level as might be awarded against a litigant who had failed when seeking to advance his or her own personal or financial interests. 4.5 A calculation of costs under the District Court Rules 2014 results in a figure of $8099.00. The RIU submits that costs in favour of Mr Morton in the sum of $8,000.00 would be appropriate. Further the RIU acknowledges that some contribution should be made towards the costs of the Judicial Control Authority. 5. THE POSITION OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY (THE JCA) 5.1 The JCA has been put to considerable expense. The principal items are the following: • Fees to Committee members (estimate) 8,000.00 • Travel expenses 440.00 • Teleconferences 100.00 • Ellerslie room hire and catering 822.00 $9,362.00 5.2 Further it should be emphasised that the Committee was required to consider a significant volume of material tendered to it which was ruled to be irrelevant. 6. DISCUSSION 6.1 The Committee determined that the criticisms and comments which Mr Morton directed at Messrs Neal and Purcell were within permitted limits. The RIU originally chose not to lay any charge or charges in relation to what was said about Mr Purcell. That position was changed as a result of what was essentially an invitation by Mr Morton’s supporter Mr Molloy to have a further charge laid. The RIU would have been wise not to have responded as it did. 6.2 It is not accepted that proceedings under the Rules of Racing and certainly the issues raised before this Committee make a comparison with the High Court Rules appropriate. The conduct of litigation in the High Court generally involves extensive preparation. That preparation is often in relation to evidence to be tendered, the cross examination of witnesses and the making of legal submissions. While Mr Dale’s submissions are helpful the Committee considers that the time required for the preparation of this proceeding does not bear a valid comparison with the preparation of what is known as a witness action in the High Court. 6.3 As to the claim for indemnity costs the Committee has carefully considered the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation (supra) and other authorities in relation to applications to fix indemnity costs. In the Committee’s view the necessary criteria for an indemnity award have not been made out. There is no evidence of an ulterior or improper motive on the part of the RIU. The hearing was not unduly extended. While the informations alleging serious racing offences had almost no prospect of succeeding the informations alleging misconduct were not completely without merit. There was an argument – not found persuasive – to be made suggesting that the language used by Mr Morton had gone too far. 6.4 Non-Raceday Judicial Committees and Appeal Tribunals have in the past observed that the quantum of costs should, in part at least, reflect the relative merits of the position taken by the parties. The sparseness of the case for the Informant is a legitimate consideration in setting a costs figure higher than might otherwise have been the case. The Committee in its written decision of 8 September 2015 made plain that it thought that the prosecution of Mr Morton was misguided. In consequence Mr Morton has been put to very significant expense. In those circumstances a costs award somewhat greater than would otherwise have been ordered is appropriate. With reference to proceedings before Disciplinary Tribunals which govern the conduct of licence holders reference has been made to the very recent judgment of the High Court in Cooper v Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No 2 of the New Zealand Law Society [2015] NZHC 2352, Venning J, 28 September 2015. Mindful of the costs actually incurred by Mr Morton and sums that have been awarded on previous occasions (again referNZTR v McAnulty) an appropriate figure for the RIU to pay Mr Morton would be $13,000.00. That figure includes an allowance for the submissions on costs. 6.5 Mr Morton makes a claim for the witness expenses of Mr Gardiner. That is a matter for resolution between Messrs Morton and Gardiner. 6.6 As to the position of the JCA a meaningful contribution to the costs incurred is appropriate. Extended briefs of evidence were put before the Committee. Significant passages were ruled out. Both counsel had at various times filed written legal submissions which required careful consideration. All of what has just been spoken of was time consuming. The hearing at Ellerslie extended over a full day and it was necessary thereafter for the Committee members to deliberate before issuing a written decision. Having regard to all of these circumstances an appropriate figure to be paid towards the costs of the JCA would be $7,500.00. 6.7 There will be a costs award in Mr Morton’s favour payable by the RIU of $13,000.00. There will be a costs award payable by the RIU to the JCA in the sum of $7,500.00. DATED this 8th day of October 2015 Murray McKechnie Chairman Signed pursuant to Rule 920(4)

I'm not questioning the fact that the line may be crossed on occasion but that's very much by a minority. If it's particular instances that they are concerned about, then it's the RIB's job to address those with those individuals in the same way that they address breaches of rules in races with the individual offenders. They don't send out a letter to all jockeys reminding them of the rules instead. We all know that the rules and codes of conduct are there.

Because of its authoritarian, patronising and bullying tone, that it was seemingly circulated randomly by the RIB, from a nameless author, and evidently with the support of only 2 of the 3 codes they represent.

That's all a bit bizarre from where I sit. The letter says To all participants, members, volunteers, employees, suppliers, and supporters of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing and Harness Racing New Zealand. I struggle to see how the likes of members and supporters are necessarily bound by the rules of racing.

Well I'm a current owner and licence holder and didn't get it, so perhaps you are right. Perhaps it was only sent to the offenders but there can't be many of those. I am shocked by the tone of it.

I didn't receive this. If I did, at best, I'd feel very offended. No organisation or employer I've ever been associated with would ever behave like this.

Clearly either didn't have his foot in the left iron when they jumped or it got dislodged when doing so. Is there a suspicion that he intentionally bailed? I haven't read the social media on this.

Not now maybe, but I remember riding against John Parsons in a point to point steeplechase at Waimate many moons ago. He won the race too.

One horse can touch so many lives.A beautiful film from Arena Racing Company highlighting the vast economic and employment impact of the racing... By At The Races_2025 07 06_17 24 22_1_885.mp4 One horse can touch so many lives.A beautiful film from Arena Racing Company highlighting the vast economic and employment impact of the racing... By At The Races_2025 07 06_17 24 22_1_885.mp4

Now that would really be tragic

What do you mean by an escape clause?

Is this what you wanted to post Thommo? This year top. Last year bottom.

16. The judges of the Competition (“Judges”) will be employees and/or contractors of Entain NZ, to be selected by Entain NZ at its sole discretion.