FFS It gets worse with these Judicial Descisions - what does Irish racing have to do with NZ?!

[Chief Stipe]

Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 13 May 2022 – David Jensen

ID: RIB9073

Respondent(s):
David Jensen - Trainer

Applicant:
Ms G Murrow

Adjudicators:
Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair), Mr T Castles

Persons Present:
Mr Jensen, Mr N Kirton assisting Mr Jensen

Information Number:
A15756

Decision Type:
Adjudicative Decision

Charge:
Failed to comply with a NZTR Directive (in line with the governance of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020)

Rule(s):
802(1)(a)

Plea:
Admitted

Hearing Date:
06/05/2022

Hearing Location:
Awapuni Racecourse, Palmerston North

Outcome: Proved

Penalty: Trainer, David Jensen suspended for 8 weeks (2 already served) and fined $750

Racing Integrity Board Decision
Between: Racing Integrity Board (Ms G Murrow) RIB Investigator – Informant
And: David Jensen – Class B Licensed Trainer – Respondent
INFORMATION NO. 15756
Inquiry held at Awapuni Racecourse 6 May 2022
Adjudication Committee:
Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)
Mr T Castles (Member)
Present:
Mr D Jensen, Respondent (assisted by Mr N Kirton)
(Ms Murrow had filed written submissions and her attendance was excused)

RESERVED DECISION OF ADJUDICATIVE COMMITTEE DATED 13 MAY 2022

1. Mr Jensen is a Class B Licensed Trainer and operating at Foxton Racecourse. He was charged with a breach of Rule 802(1)(a) of the NZ Thoroughbred Racing Rules in that:
a) On 24 February 2022 he attended at the race meeting at Whanganui racecourse and knowingly failed to comply with a NZTR Directive (in line with the governance of the Covid 19 Public Health Response Act 2020).

2. Rule 802(1)(a) relevantly provides that if “person commits a breach of these Rules who acts in contravention or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules, or any Policy, Notice, Direction, Instruction …, requirement …, made or imposed under these Rules”.

3. A Directive was issued by NZTR to all Licensees on 26 November 2021 and required “that all people entering the [race] meeting provide their “My Vaccine Pass” at entry to prove that they were double vaccinated against the Covid 19 virus”. The directive stated that a “failure to adhere to this Directive (and the protocols set out…) constituted a breach of the Rules of Racing (Rule 801 – Serious Racing Offence) or may be a breach stipulated as a Minor Infringement”.

4. Mr Jensen did not have such a pass as proof of double vaccination, or any exemption issued by the Ministry of Health. That was because he was not double vaccinated. No such pass or proof was or could be held. He entered Whanganui Racecourse on the 24 February 2022 as a Trainer to attend the race meeting on that day.

5. Mr Jensen admitted the charge. By consent, a penalty decision was made by an adjudication Committee of the RIB on the papers on 11 April 2022. As that decision recorded, there had been several directions that Mr Jensen submit his penalty submission, but none were received. Mr Jensen later submitted that he did not know of the directions, so the Committee determined that in fairness to him, to grant a rehearing under Rule 923(1) to rectify any mistake.

6. The rehearing of the penalty decision has occurred on, 6 May 2022. Submissions, both in the writing and orally, have been received from both Mr Jensen and his Lay Representative, Mr Kirton. The Informant’s written submissions, earlier received, were also before the Committee, and Ms Murrow’s attendance had been excused.

7. The Submissions that are now presented by the Lay Representative put forward an argument, set out below, which had not been advanced by Mr Jensen in his written submissions, nor signaled to the Informant, who has had no opportunity to respond to them. But the intricate argument of Mr Kirton is rejected as we later recorded, if is not necessary for the penalty hearing to be prolonged by further submissions from the Informant. However, we direct that the directive that the written submissions of Mr Kirton at the hearing are to be forwarded to the Informant so as that it may be able to meet any later action if it arose. That is because Mr Kirton then delivered a warning statement to the Committee “would encounter significant procedural Appeal and Review challenge should it proceed to impose a penalty outside the Minor Infringement penalty system”.

Essential facts
8. Mr Jensen Holds a Class B Trainer’s License which is issued to Trainers who do not train more than six horses, which shall include those in which he/she may have an ownership interest (Rule 304(c)). He says he trains 5 horses for himself and owners.

9. On 24 February 2022 he attended a race meeting at Whanganui Racecourse, he said in order to assist with a fractious horse. He was not double vaccinated. When asked by Stewards for his required pass he said that he left it in his car. This explanation was false. He did not have such a pass. He was asked by the Stewards to retrieve his “pass” and return. He then gave a different explanation, namely that he thought his “pass” was in his wallet and had been left at home. Mr Jensen then said that his cellphone was “flat”, so he was unable to show his pass in that form. He then left the course without returning, despite being requested, to the Stewards’ Room.

10. The RIB Investigator required Mr Jensen to email the pass he claimed he had by the end of the day. At 8pm that day he advised the Investigator that he had no Wi-Fi access so was unable to send his pass. An arrangement was made the for him to meet the NZTR employee who checked COVID passes, the next day. Mr Jensen did not attend. But at approximately noon on the morning of 25 February 2022, he sent a vaccine pass to the Investigator, that had not existed the previous day. When further questioned as to whether he had such a pass previously, he responded in an agitated and aggressive fashion and terminated the telephone call.

11. Later that day he admitted to the Investigator that he had obtained his second vaccination only on that morning of 25 February 2022. He admitted that on the previous day of 24 February 2022 when he entered the racecourse, he had only received one vaccination, and did not have the required pass, or proof.

12. Enquires disclosed that he had also attended other race meetings (on 2 January 2022, and 11 February 2022 at Awapuni) when he did not comply with the NZTR Directive, with proof on double vaccination with a “My Vaccine Pass”. So, his disobedience of the Directive in fact had occurred on 3 occasions.

Penalty Submissions
13. After referring to the principles and considerations discussed by an Appeal Committee in RIU v L – where all are well known to the Committee – the Informant summarised these as needing to proportionally balance:

• The public interest
• The interest of the offender
• The interests of the profession
• The seriousness of the offending
• Aggravating and mitigating factors

14. The Informant submitted there was a need to deter others from similar offending – that is, for disobedience of NZTR Directives which required compliance by Licensees. She referred to the provisions in Rule 803(1), namely disqualification or suspension up to 12 months, fine not exceeding $20,000.

15. It was submitted by the RIB, that “the penalty should be a fine with serious consideration to a period of suspension or disqualification”.

16. The Informant has referred to comparable cases of RIB v Keegan (4-month suspension and $3,000 fine for a Licensed Class A Trainer), RIB v Hewitson, (a fine of $2,400 but no suspension (as his license had expired) where a domestic regional boundary restriction was crossed; RIB v Harvey (fine of $2,700 for crossing a domestic boundary). In a further somewhat similar case to the present of RIB v Swann where a Licensed Class B Trainer without a ‘My Vaccine Pass” was suspended for 3 months and fined $1,000.

17. Mr Jensen in his written submissions, said that:
• He was training 5 horses, had 2 in pre-training and breaking in. Any suspension would seriously disadvantage him and his owners.
• He had no previous breaches of the Rules of Racing, despite a lifetime in racing.
• He was in a ‘precarious financial position’ with earnings below the minimum wage level and would have to borrow in order to meet any substantial fine which would cause him substantial hardship if being other than ‘small’.
• His neglect in ‘not obtaining a double vaccination pass was a careless mistake’.
• Companions and others to whom he has spoken regarded suspension of 3 months and a fine of $1,000 as outrageous.
• Any penalty had to be disproportionate to the level of breach.

18. As mentioned, Mr Kirton sought to argue that the only penalty that the Committee could impose was $50 for a Minor Infringement under Rule 926. He contended:
a) The RIB Informant has “inflated the charge as to penalty, under the Rule 803(1)”, and incorrectly sought to invoke that provision because the penalty provisions are expressly provided elsewhere – that is in the NZTR Directive and are Minor Infringement penalties.
b) Mr Jensen only admitted that he failed “to comply with the Covid 19 Directive, Policy as instruction” and therefore, he argued, he failed to comply with the Directive par. 2.1(f)(s) that he did not allow the “My Vaccine Pass” to be scanned or sighted”.
c) Mr Kirton’s argument then inferred to Para 7.1 of the Directive which he says leads to the outcome of a Minor Infringement penalty of $50 only.

19. We do not accept this opportunistic argument. It is flawed and is not upheld. The starting point for penalty is the provision of the NZTR Directive. His offence is failure to adhere to the Directive and the protocols. It says that such a failure may breach the Rules of Racing Rule of Racing Offences or may, not must, be a breach stipulated as a Minor Infringement. The Informant may elect to proceed on either basis. Rule 7.1 states that failure to comply with “CERTAIN components” of the Directive will attract a Minor Infringement penalty”. But this only where: there is
a) “Failure to clearly display NZTR identification” or
b) Failure to follow a clear instruction of compliance as provided by an RIB Steward or Investigator or Club or NZTR Official.

Mr Kirton seeks to invoke a second “failure” by contending that it was the failure to obey the instruction directive or the requests of the Investigator to produce the pass that requires the Minor Infringement regime to be adopted. The Directive that was disobeyed was that of the NZTR – not an instruction as provided by the Investigator. Obviously, there was a request by an Official for a person to produce proof of a person’s double vaccination status. That is impossible where, as here, the person is not double vaccinated. That is his offence. Failure to provide such proof (none existing) was in breach of what the Directive, not the Investigator, says.

20. The purpose of clause 7.1 of the Directive is to provide for some situations, such as a Trainer entering a weigh-in room when instructed not to do so or failing to wear a face covering in certain areas, or entering the Jockeys’ Room when directed not to do so. There would also have been other situations. But the essential foundation of the Directive was to prevent the entering of race meetings by those who were not double vaccinated, and as clause 7.3 makes clear.
“A false statement regarding vaccination status to the NZTR, the RIB or a racing club will also be regarded as a Serious Racing Offence”.
Nothing could be clearer. What Mr Jensen did when telling falsehoods to the Officials about his status. He entered the course in breach of the Directive. The RIB chose to present the Information as it was entitled to do rather than adopt the Minor Offence system under Rule 926 (which would have been totally inappropriate). It was entitled to regard this action as bearing a “certain component” were outside the 2 “failures” referred to in clause 7.1 to require Minor Infringement procedure. Mr Jensen was properly charged with knowingly failing to comply with the NZTR Directive. He admitted the charge, and attempts by him, or his Lay Representative, to now endeavor to use the Minor Infringement provisions in clause 7.1 is misguided Rule 803(1) of the Rules of Racing.

Penalty Reasons

21. The issue is not one of being unvaccinated nor having a nominated pass. But rather the deliberate, dishonesty, and disobedience of the Rules of the profession. A Trainer did not have to be double vaccinated, but he/she was required to obey the Rules of the Code. If they wished to have the privilege of being licensed by the profession and attending race meetings, they had the obligation of complying with the Rules of that profession.

22. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Jensen acknowledged that he earlier attended other race meetings (he said 2, although it may have been 3) in breach of the Directive of which he was aware.

23. In his written submissions he said not having a second vaccination was a “careless mistake”. It emerged that he had had one vaccination but not the required second one until 25 February 2022, the day after the offence. His reference to having a “card in his wallet” which he said to the Investigator to deflect the enquiries– this was only a card stating that he had a second vaccination appointment for 29 December 2021. Which was apparent when the Committee requested to see the card. But there never was a second vaccination then. We do not accept that his actions going onto the racecourse on 24 February (or earlier on other occasions) was a result of carelessness. He knew that he had only had one vaccination and said he knew what the NZTR Directive was. Those other occasions were not of course the subject of charges, but in a sense may be balancing aggravating factors factor that might offset mitigating matters.

24. Given the statement made by Mr Jensen that others have said to him that any significant suspension or fine was “outrageous”, it might be helpful to him and those who support him, to be aware of some of the other penalty decisions for similar breaches of Covid Directives in the various jurisdictions. Some are set out as follows:
a) New Zealand decisions of RIU v Harvey and RIU v Hewitson resulted in fines of $2,400 and $2,700 and related only to unauthorised crossing of temporary boundary restrictions
b) RIU v Keegan involved a Trainer entering a racecourse in defiance of the Directive and obtaining and presenting forged documents to avoid apprehension – suspended 4 months and fined $3,000
c) RIU v Swann – attending a racecourse and presenting an altered document (not having a valid pass) in order to mislead the Investigators – suspended 3 months and fined $1000
d) Four Australian cases which resulted in the suspensions of 3 months of Jockeys and Trainers plus fines of $8,750 and$15,000 for two Trainers.
e) Two Irish cases where Trainers were fined £3,500 and £4,000 plus a 3 month suspension in one case.

25. These examples may provide some illustration that the New Zealand approach has been relatively modest.

26. Mr Jensen’s offence is not in the same egregious category as that of Ms Keegan which involved forgery. But it was more serious than just crossing unauthorised boundaries. It bears some similarity to that of RIB v Swann where starting points of a 4-month suspension and $1,500 fine were adopted, with the outcome of 3 months suspension and $1,000 fine. In that case there existed an aggravating factor of deleting a date from an electronic record, whereas Mr Jensen’s actions did not go that far. Although they were aimed at misleading the RIB, making false statements, and securing the document the next day that had not previously existed.

27. The ultimate sanction imposed must reflect all the circumstances of the breach, the offender and balance mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as allow room in appropriate cases for any special leniency as compassionate discretions.

28. For Mr Jensen, we adopt a starting point of 12 weeks suspension and a $1,000 fine. From that there will be concessions to reflect mitigating and personal matters to Mr Jensen. Although he has a blameless history of not having been being charged with breaches of the Rules, there were similar deliberate actions over 2 months breaching the Directive. These are measured against the level of discount to be afforded. On the other hand, we recognize that Mr Jensen is a young Trainer and a developing asset to horse racing in the Central Districts. He has served racing well until now in several respects. He has, it is to be hoped, a promising future. His personal family and financial circumstances are recognised and were explored in questions by the Committee, but do not require mention of the details in this decision. Of course, any suspension or fine imposes a punishment and disadvantage to Mr Jensen. But that is often the inevitable result of a person in whatever profession they may practice having to face san ctions for their breach of the Rules of that profession. It is a consequence of their actions. The overall interests of the professional and the need to deter others from breaching the Rules, are significant factors.

29. Balancing all considerations as best we can, the Committee allows significant discounts of 33⅓% from a suspension period of 12 weeks, so as to be 8 weeks. It allows 25% discount from the fine of $1,000, so as to be $750.

30. As Mr Jensen has already served to 2 weeks of suspension prior to the rehearing being granted, the term of the suspension imposed is therefore from 5 pm Monday, 16 May 2022, until 5pm Monday, 27 June 2022.

31. For the assistance of Mr Jensen, we make the following comments. As a class B Trainer, a horse being spelled is not being “trained” (Rule 304(2)). And where a person holds a Trainer’s License, and has been suspended, he may seek to obtain the written consent of the NZTR to “work or assist in connection with the care, control and training of a horse”. Whether such consent was given is the prerogative of the NZTR.

Summary

32. Mr Jensen’s Trainer’s License is suspended for 8 weeks (2 already served) from 5pm Monday, 16 May 2022 until 5pm Monday, 27 June 2022.

33. He is fined $750.

34. There is no order for costs

Dated 13 May 2022

Signed:

Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)

 

[Chief Stipe]

Aside from the fact that it must have cost a heap for a Honorable QC to research and write a comprehensive legal argument, why reference Irish racing?

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

d) Four Australian cases which resulted in the suspensions of 3 months of Jockeys and Trainers plus fines of $8,750 and$15,000 for two Trainers.
e) Two Irish cases where Trainers were fined £3,500 and £4,000 plus a 3 month suspension in one case.

25. These examples may provide some illustration that the New Zealand approach has been relatively modest.

 

 

[Huey]

Imagine if these pretenders running the industry put this much effort into actually improving the state of the industry as they do pushing this level of total BS!

These charges are nothing more than a farce, both this case and several others. 

 

 

[mikeynz]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 13 May 2022 – David Jensen

ID: RIB9073

Respondent(s):
David Jensen - Trainer

Applicant:
Ms G Murrow

Adjudicators:
Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair), Mr T Castles

Persons Present:
Mr Jensen, Mr N Kirton assisting Mr Jensen

Information Number:
A15756

Decision Type:
Adjudicative Decision

Charge:
Failed to comply with a NZTR Directive (in line with the governance of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020)

Rule(s):
802(1)(a)

Plea:
Admitted

Hearing Date:
06/05/2022

Hearing Location:
Awapuni Racecourse, Palmerston North

Outcome: Proved

Penalty: Trainer, David Jensen suspended for 8 weeks (2 already served) and fined $750

Racing Integrity Board Decision
Between: Racing Integrity Board (Ms G Murrow) RIB Investigator – Informant
And: David Jensen – Class B Licensed Trainer – Respondent
INFORMATION NO. 15756
Inquiry held at Awapuni Racecourse 6 May 2022
Adjudication Committee:
Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)
Mr T Castles (Member)
Present:
Mr D Jensen, Respondent (assisted by Mr N Kirton)
(Ms Murrow had filed written submissions and her attendance was excused)

RESERVED DECISION OF ADJUDICATIVE COMMITTEE DATED 13 MAY 2022

1. Mr Jensen is a Class B Licensed Trainer and operating at Foxton Racecourse. He was charged with a breach of Rule 802(1)(a) of the NZ Thoroughbred Racing Rules in that:
a) On 24 February 2022 he attended at the race meeting at Whanganui racecourse and knowingly failed to comply with a NZTR Directive (in line with the governance of the Covid 19 Public Health Response Act 2020).

2. Rule 802(1)(a) relevantly provides that if “person commits a breach of these Rules who acts in contravention or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules, or any Policy, Notice, Direction, Instruction …, requirement …, made or imposed under these Rules”.

3. A Directive was issued by NZTR to all Licensees on 26 November 2021 and required “that all people entering the [race] meeting provide their “My Vaccine Pass” at entry to prove that they were double vaccinated against the Covid 19 virus”. The directive stated that a “failure to adhere to this Directive (and the protocols set out…) constituted a breach of the Rules of Racing (Rule 801 – Serious Racing Offence) or may be a breach stipulated as a Minor Infringement”.

4. Mr Jensen did not have such a pass as proof of double vaccination, or any exemption issued by the Ministry of Health. That was because he was not double vaccinated. No such pass or proof was or could be held. He entered Whanganui Racecourse on the 24 February 2022 as a Trainer to attend the race meeting on that day.

5. Mr Jensen admitted the charge. By consent, a penalty decision was made by an adjudication Committee of the RIB on the papers on 11 April 2022. As that decision recorded, there had been several directions that Mr Jensen submit his penalty submission, but none were received. Mr Jensen later submitted that he did not know of the directions, so the Committee determined that in fairness to him, to grant a rehearing under Rule 923(1) to rectify any mistake.

6. The rehearing of the penalty decision has occurred on, 6 May 2022. Submissions, both in the writing and orally, have been received from both Mr Jensen and his Lay Representative, Mr Kirton. The Informant’s written submissions, earlier received, were also before the Committee, and Ms Murrow’s attendance had been excused.

7. The Submissions that are now presented by the Lay Representative put forward an argument, set out below, which had not been advanced by Mr Jensen in his written submissions, nor signaled to the Informant, who has had no opportunity to respond to them. But the intricate argument of Mr Kirton is rejected as we later recorded, if is not necessary for the penalty hearing to be prolonged by further submissions from the Informant. However, we direct that the directive that the written submissions of Mr Kirton at the hearing are to be forwarded to the Informant so as that it may be able to meet any later action if it arose. That is because Mr Kirton then delivered a warning statement to the Committee “would encounter significant procedural Appeal and Review challenge should it proceed to impose a penalty outside the Minor Infringement penalty system”.

Essential facts
8. Mr Jensen Holds a Class B Trainer’s License which is issued to Trainers who do not train more than six horses, which shall include those in which he/she may have an ownership interest (Rule 304(c)). He says he trains 5 horses for himself and owners.

9. On 24 February 2022 he attended a race meeting at Whanganui Racecourse, he said in order to assist with a fractious horse. He was not double vaccinated. When asked by Stewards for his required pass he said that he left it in his car. This explanation was false. He did not have such a pass. He was asked by the Stewards to retrieve his “pass” and return. He then gave a different explanation, namely that he thought his “pass” was in his wallet and had been left at home. Mr Jensen then said that his cellphone was “flat”, so he was unable to show his pass in that form. He then left the course without returning, despite being requested, to the Stewards’ Room.

10. The RIB Investigator required Mr Jensen to email the pass he claimed he had by the end of the day. At 8pm that day he advised the Investigator that he had no Wi-Fi access so was unable to send his pass. An arrangement was made the for him to meet the NZTR employee who checked COVID passes, the next day. Mr Jensen did not attend. But at approximately noon on the morning of 25 February 2022, he sent a vaccine pass to the Investigator, that had not existed the previous day. When further questioned as to whether he had such a pass previously, he responded in an agitated and aggressive fashion and terminated the telephone call.

11. Later that day he admitted to the Investigator that he had obtained his second vaccination only on that morning of 25 February 2022. He admitted that on the previous day of 24 February 2022 when he entered the racecourse, he had only received one vaccination, and did not have the required pass, or proof.

12. Enquires disclosed that he had also attended other race meetings (on 2 January 2022, and 11 February 2022 at Awapuni) when he did not comply with the NZTR Directive, with proof on double vaccination with a “My Vaccine Pass”. So, his disobedience of the Directive in fact had occurred on 3 occasions.

Penalty Submissions
13. After referring to the principles and considerations discussed by an Appeal Committee in RIU v L – where all are well known to the Committee – the Informant summarised these as needing to proportionally balance:

• The public interest
• The interest of the offender
• The interests of the profession
• The seriousness of the offending
• Aggravating and mitigating factors

14. The Informant submitted there was a need to deter others from similar offending – that is, for disobedience of NZTR Directives which required compliance by Licensees. She referred to the provisions in Rule 803(1), namely disqualification or suspension up to 12 months, fine not exceeding $20,000.

15. It was submitted by the RIB, that “the penalty should be a fine with serious consideration to a period of suspension or disqualification”.

16. The Informant has referred to comparable cases of RIB v Keegan (4-month suspension and $3,000 fine for a Licensed Class A Trainer), RIB v Hewitson, (a fine of $2,400 but no suspension (as his license had expired) where a domestic regional boundary restriction was crossed; RIB v Harvey (fine of $2,700 for crossing a domestic boundary). In a further somewhat similar case to the present of RIB v Swann where a Licensed Class B Trainer without a ‘My Vaccine Pass” was suspended for 3 months and fined $1,000.

17. Mr Jensen in his written submissions, said that:
• He was training 5 horses, had 2 in pre-training and breaking in. Any suspension would seriously disadvantage him and his owners.
• He had no previous breaches of the Rules of Racing, despite a lifetime in racing.
• He was in a ‘precarious financial position’ with earnings below the minimum wage level and would have to borrow in order to meet any substantial fine which would cause him substantial hardship if being other than ‘small’.
• His neglect in ‘not obtaining a double vaccination pass was a careless mistake’.
• Companions and others to whom he has spoken regarded suspension of 3 months and a fine of $1,000 as outrageous.
• Any penalty had to be disproportionate to the level of breach.

18. As mentioned, Mr Kirton sought to argue that the only penalty that the Committee could impose was $50 for a Minor Infringement under Rule 926. He contended:
a) The RIB Informant has “inflated the charge as to penalty, under the Rule 803(1)”, and incorrectly sought to invoke that provision because the penalty provisions are expressly provided elsewhere – that is in the NZTR Directive and are Minor Infringement penalties.
b) Mr Jensen only admitted that he failed “to comply with the Covid 19 Directive, Policy as instruction” and therefore, he argued, he failed to comply with the Directive par. 2.1(f)(s) that he did not allow the “My Vaccine Pass” to be scanned or sighted”.
c) Mr Kirton’s argument then inferred to Para 7.1 of the Directive which he says leads to the outcome of a Minor Infringement penalty of $50 only.

19. We do not accept this opportunistic argument. It is flawed and is not upheld. The starting point for penalty is the provision of the NZTR Directive. His offence is failure to adhere to the Directive and the protocols. It says that such a failure may breach the Rules of Racing Rule of Racing Offences or may, not must, be a breach stipulated as a Minor Infringement. The Informant may elect to proceed on either basis. Rule 7.1 states that failure to comply with “CERTAIN components” of the Directive will attract a Minor Infringement penalty”. But this only where: there is
a) “Failure to clearly display NZTR identification” or
b) Failure to follow a clear instruction of compliance as provided by an RIB Steward or Investigator or Club or NZTR Official.

Mr Kirton seeks to invoke a second “failure” by contending that it was the failure to obey the instruction directive or the requests of the Investigator to produce the pass that requires the Minor Infringement regime to be adopted. The Directive that was disobeyed was that of the NZTR – not an instruction as provided by the Investigator. Obviously, there was a request by an Official for a person to produce proof of a person’s double vaccination status. That is impossible where, as here, the person is not double vaccinated. That is his offence. Failure to provide such proof (none existing) was in breach of what the Directive, not the Investigator, says.

20. The purpose of clause 7.1 of the Directive is to provide for some situations, such as a Trainer entering a weigh-in room when instructed not to do so or failing to wear a face covering in certain areas, or entering the Jockeys’ Room when directed not to do so. There would also have been other situations. But the essential foundation of the Directive was to prevent the entering of race meetings by those who were not double vaccinated, and as clause 7.3 makes clear.
“A false statement regarding vaccination status to the NZTR, the RIB or a racing club will also be regarded as a Serious Racing Offence”.
Nothing could be clearer. What Mr Jensen did when telling falsehoods to the Officials about his status. He entered the course in breach of the Directive. The RIB chose to present the Information as it was entitled to do rather than adopt the Minor Offence system under Rule 926 (which would have been totally inappropriate). It was entitled to regard this action as bearing a “certain component” were outside the 2 “failures” referred to in clause 7.1 to require Minor Infringement procedure. Mr Jensen was properly charged with knowingly failing to comply with the NZTR Directive. He admitted the charge, and attempts by him, or his Lay Representative, to now endeavor to use the Minor Infringement provisions in clause 7.1 is misguided Rule 803(1) of the Rules of Racing.

Penalty Reasons

21. The issue is not one of being unvaccinated nor having a nominated pass. But rather the deliberate, dishonesty, and disobedience of the Rules of the profession. A Trainer did not have to be double vaccinated, but he/she was required to obey the Rules of the Code. If they wished to have the privilege of being licensed by the profession and attending race meetings, they had the obligation of complying with the Rules of that profession.

22. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Jensen acknowledged that he earlier attended other race meetings (he said 2, although it may have been 3) in breach of the Directive of which he was aware.

23. In his written submissions he said not having a second vaccination was a “careless mistake”. It emerged that he had had one vaccination but not the required second one until 25 February 2022, the day after the offence. His reference to having a “card in his wallet” which he said to the Investigator to deflect the enquiries– this was only a card stating that he had a second vaccination appointment for 29 December 2021. Which was apparent when the Committee requested to see the card. But there never was a second vaccination then. We do not accept that his actions going onto the racecourse on 24 February (or earlier on other occasions) was a result of carelessness. He knew that he had only had one vaccination and said he knew what the NZTR Directive was. Those other occasions were not of course the subject of charges, but in a sense may be balancing aggravating factors factor that might offset mitigating matters.

24. Given the statement made by Mr Jensen that others have said to him that any significant suspension or fine was “outrageous”, it might be helpful to him and those who support him, to be aware of some of the other penalty decisions for similar breaches of Covid Directives in the various jurisdictions. Some are set out as follows:
a) New Zealand decisions of RIU v Harvey and RIU v Hewitson resulted in fines of $2,400 and $2,700 and related only to unauthorised crossing of temporary boundary restrictions
b) RIU v Keegan involved a Trainer entering a racecourse in defiance of the Directive and obtaining and presenting forged documents to avoid apprehension – suspended 4 months and fined $3,000
c) RIU v Swann – attending a racecourse and presenting an altered document (not having a valid pass) in order to mislead the Investigators – suspended 3 months and fined $1000
d) Four Australian cases which resulted in the suspensions of 3 months of Jockeys and Trainers plus fines of $8,750 and$15,000 for two Trainers.
e) Two Irish cases where Trainers were fined £3,500 and £4,000 plus a 3 month suspension in one case.

25. These examples may provide some illustration that the New Zealand approach has been relatively modest.

26. Mr Jensen’s offence is not in the same egregious category as that of Ms Keegan which involved forgery. But it was more serious than just crossing unauthorised boundaries. It bears some similarity to that of RIB v Swann where starting points of a 4-month suspension and $1,500 fine were adopted, with the outcome of 3 months suspension and $1,000 fine. In that case there existed an aggravating factor of deleting a date from an electronic record, whereas Mr Jensen’s actions did not go that far. Although they were aimed at misleading the RIB, making false statements, and securing the document the next day that had not previously existed.

27. The ultimate sanction imposed must reflect all the circumstances of the breach, the offender and balance mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as allow room in appropriate cases for any special leniency as compassionate discretions.

28. For Mr Jensen, we adopt a starting point of 12 weeks suspension and a $1,000 fine. From that there will be concessions to reflect mitigating and personal matters to Mr Jensen. Although he has a blameless history of not having been being charged with breaches of the Rules, there were similar deliberate actions over 2 months breaching the Directive. These are measured against the level of discount to be afforded. On the other hand, we recognize that Mr Jensen is a young Trainer and a developing asset to horse racing in the Central Districts. He has served racing well until now in several respects. He has, it is to be hoped, a promising future. His personal family and financial circumstances are recognised and were explored in questions by the Committee, but do not require mention of the details in this decision. Of course, any suspension or fine imposes a punishment and disadvantage to Mr Jensen. But that is often the inevitable result of a person in whatever profession they may practice having to face san ctions for their breach of the Rules of that profession. It is a consequence of their actions. The overall interests of the professional and the need to deter others from breaching the Rules, are significant factors.

29. Balancing all considerations as best we can, the Committee allows significant discounts of 33⅓% from a suspension period of 12 weeks, so as to be 8 weeks. It allows 25% discount from the fine of $1,000, so as to be $750.

30. As Mr Jensen has already served to 2 weeks of suspension prior to the rehearing being granted, the term of the suspension imposed is therefore from 5 pm Monday, 16 May 2022, until 5pm Monday, 27 June 2022.

31. For the assistance of Mr Jensen, we make the following comments. As a class B Trainer, a horse being spelled is not being “trained” (Rule 304(2)). And where a person holds a Trainer’s License, and has been suspended, he may seek to obtain the written consent of the NZTR to “work or assist in connection with the care, control and training of a horse”. Whether such consent was given is the prerogative of the NZTR.

Summary

32. Mr Jensen’s Trainer’s License is suspended for 8 weeks (2 already served) from 5pm Monday, 16 May 2022 until 5pm Monday, 27 June 2022.

33. He is fined $750.

34. There is no order for costs

Dated 13 May 2022

Signed:

Hon JW Gendall QC (Chair)

 

When I see QC next to someone's name I always think queer cunt😁

[holy ravioli]

On 5/20/2022 at 10:13 AM, Chief Stipe said:

Aside from the fact that it must have cost a heap for a Honorable QC to research and write a comprehensive legal argument, why reference Irish racing?

 

The reference is clearly explained if you read the whole thing.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, holy ravioli said:

The reference is clearly explained if you read the whole thing.

Once again you miss the point.  

[holy ravioli]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Once again you miss the point.  

Oh dear..I thought the 'point' was..obvious?

[Chief Stipe]

44 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Oh dear..I thought the 'point' was..obvious?

So the NZ precedents were not enough?

Was there actually a point of law that needed Justice Gendall to research precedents from other jurisdictions?

Is there a possibility that this decision will be challenged in a higher court?

In my opinion it was a typical expensive ego trip by an aging Judge that achieves nothing but cost to the industry.

Those are points that are obviously beyond you.

[curious]

Fair decision, lenient penalty as was pointed out. You can't have this behaviour going on if you want the perception of the integrity of the industry. Needs to be deterred strongly and that may not be enough to do it. Rules are rules.

[curious]

Just now, curious said:

Fair decision, lenient penalty as was pointed out. You can't have this behaviour going on if you want the perception of the integrity of the industry to encourage wagering growth. Needs to be deterred strongly and that may not be enough to do it. Rules are rules.

 

[Chief Stipe]

On 21/05/2022 at 6:39 PM, curious said:

Fair decision, lenient penalty as was pointed out. You can't have this behaviour going on if you want the perception of the integrity of the industry. Needs to be deterred strongly and that may not be enough to do it. Rules are rules.

That they are.  My point is that the rules can be enforced and adjudicated on in a much more cost effective way than they are at present.  The new RIB which is the amalgamation of previously two separate enforcement arms of the industry was supposed to provide some cost efficiencies.

It is clearly apparent that no such efficiencies have eventuated with the RIB costs increasing.

If there is a rule then the penalty should be clear.  If the respondent disagrees and wishes to appeal then that should be the point at which costs are incurred and legal points of law are tested. 

[holy ravioli]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

That they are.  My point is that the rules can be enforced and adjudicated on in a much more cost effective way than they are at present.  The new RIB which is the amalgamation of previously two separate enforcement arms of the industry was supposed to provide some cost efficiencies.

It is clearly apparent that no such efficiencies have eventuated with the RIB costs increasing.

If there is a rule then the penalty should be clear.  If the respondent disagrees and wishes to appeal then that should be the point at which costs are incurred and legal points of law are tested. 

So how did the reference to other racing jurisdictions(as per your OP)impact on costs?

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

So how did the reference to other racing jurisdictions(as per your OP)impact on costs?

Do you think Gendall did the research?  Did it need to be done?  If Gendall did it himself what does an ex Judge QC charge per hour?

[holy ravioli]

5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Do you think Gendall did the research?  Did it need to be done?  If Gendall did it himself what does an ex Judge QC charge per hour?

So..sad.😁

[Chief Stipe]

Is this decision consistent with Jensen's case?

Non Raceday Inquiry - Dated 23 May 2022 - Kurtis Pertab

racingintegrityboard.org.nz

EVIDENCE
[1] Kurtis Pertab, the Respondent is a Licensed Class B Trainer and a Registered Owner under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing operating at Matamata, with six horses in training and between 30 and 36 horses in his care for breaking.

[2] The Respondent faces one charge that between 13 December 2021 and 7 January 2022 at Matamata Racecourse, he attended Matamata Racecourse to work his horses on the course and failed to comply with NZTR Directive, in accordance with the Government “Covid-19 Public Health Act 2020” in breach of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rule 802(1)(a) as he presented a fake vaccination pass to the Racecourse Manager.

[3] Rule 802(1)(a) provides that:
A person commits a breach who acts in contravention of or fails to comply with a provision of the Rules . . . or any policy, notice, direction, ……………. or condition ….. made or imposed under the Rules.

[4] Following a teleconference on 24 March 2022, Mr R Smith, Counsel for the Respondent confirmed that the charge was admitted and the parties agreed that the hearing as to Penalty is to be on the papers.

[5] We have considered all relevant documents including Information number A16409, the Summary of Facts and Penalty Submissions from the Applicant and Respondent.

THE NZTR DIRECTIVE, NZTR RULES OF RACING:
[6] The NZTR Directive requires Industry stakeholders and participants to comply with not only the Racing Codes Covid plans and policy, but also relevant government regulations. The Directive, since it was first promulgated has been regularly updated on the NZTR website.

[7] On 26 November 2021, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing implemented an updated Directive under the Covid Protection Framework As follows:
8.1 Admission to Thoroughbred training centres
From midnight 12 December 2021, persons may only enter a Thoroughbred training centre (Including leased stable boxes or barns) if they have provided the Club or venue operator on at least one occasion their “My Vaccine Pass” to prove that they are double vaccinated.
8.2 Club Obligations
Each Club or operator of a public training centre must implement procedures that eliminate the risk of transmission of COVID-19 to the maximum extent possible. Without limiting this obligation, each Club or venue operator must:
(a) Develop and implement a process or register for recording the vaccination status of persons who intend regularly working or visiting the training centre.
(b) Erect appropriate signage, and on a best endeavours basis ensure that occasional workers or visitors also prove that they are vaccinated; and
(c) Clearly communicate these requirements to all track users and visitors.
8.3 Licenceholder Obligations
(a) Each Licenceholder is obligated to adhere to the vaccination requirement of any training venue that they utilise. (b) Each Licenceholder must ensure that they                and their staff, contractors or visitors to the training centre are compliant with the venue’s vaccination requirements.

[8] Furthermore, the Directive provides that all persons admitted to a racecourse for a meeting must:
• Allow their “My Vaccine Pass” to be scanned or sighted as proof that they are double vaccinated; and
• Any attempt to falsify proof of a person’s vaccination status (‘My Vaccine Pass’ or in another form) will be reported to the NZ Police and will also be treated as a             Serious Racing Offence. A false statement regarding vaccination status to NZTR, the RIB or a racing club will also be regarded as a Serious Racing Offence.

[9] In addition to the Directive (as outlined above), Section 101(1) of the Racing Rules makes clear that the Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with Racing, and shall apply to and be binding on (c) all Licensed Persons; and (d) any other person working in or about any racing stable or Racecourse or care, control or management of horses etc.

PENALTY PROVISIONS:
[10] Rule 803(1) provides that:
A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:
   1. be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
   2. be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension        shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
  3. a fine not exceeding $20,000.00

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
[11] The Matamata Racing Club facilities are sanctioned under the Rules of Racing to hold race meetings, trials and workouts and are also used for training thoroughbred racehorses. The course Facility Manager is responsible for oversight and implementation of the Covid-19 Emergency Regulations Directive.

[12] The Respondent is a Licensed Trainer and is authorised to use the facilities to train his horses which he uses six days a week.

[13] On 31 December 2021, the course Facility Manager asked the Respondent if he was vaccinated and whether he was following the protocols and guidelines initiated by the Club to prevent the spread of Covid infection and to abide by the government orders and guidelines. The Respondent replied that he was fully vaccinated and was complying with the Rules and Guidelines.

[14] On Monday 3 January 2022, the Facility Manager, having been informed by the facility users that the Respondent was not vaccinated and that they were worried about their wellbeing, challenged the Respondent and asked for proof of vaccination and demanded to see his ‘My Vaccine Pass’. The Respondent took out his mobile phone and after scrolling through it, presented what appeared to be a ‘bona fide’ copy of his Vaccine Pass.

[15] After the receipt of further information, authorities were made aware that the Respondent had deceived the Club by presenting a ‘fake’ ‘My Vaccine Pass’.

[16] On 5 January 2022, the Facility Manager, again challenged the Respondent’s compliance with the Covid-19 Emergency Regulations. As a result, the matter was referred to a Racing Integrity Board Investigator.

[17] On Friday 7 January 2022, the Respondent was spoken to by an Investigator. He admitted creating and presenting a ‘fake’ ‘My Vaccine Pass’ and that he had not been vaccinated.

[18] In explanation the Respondent stated that “he did not have confidence that the vaccination was going to work and did not want to rush it and he just wanted to earn an income.”

[19] The Respondent apologised for his actions.

[20] The Respondent has been training for one year. He has not previously breached the Rules.

[21] The Respondent does not fully accept there was a discussion as to whether he was following the protocols and guidelines initiated by the Club to prevent the spread of Covid-19 infections and to abide by the Government orders and guidelines. He said he was riding a horse at walking pace on the racecourse at Matamata. He does however accept the Summary of Facts with that one exception, which we do not regard as material to our decision.

[22] The presentation of a fake passport is “a serious racing offence.”

RIB SUBMISSIONS:
[23] The RIB acknowledges that the risk posed to public health by persons who chose not to be vaccinated is no longer as relevant as it once was. The new Omicron variant is significantly less dangerous than that of its predecessor, ‘Delta’. With New Zealand’s high vaccination rate, it is becoming more apparent that choosing to not be vaccinated against Covid-19 is more of a health risk to the individual than those around them. However, the RIB submits that those who attend an event requiring all attendees to be vaccinated, such as a race meeting and training facilities, are entitled to expect that this requirement will be followed, reducing any potential or perceived risk. Any attempt to subvert this expectation involves a significant breach of trust of other attendees /participants.

[24] The RIB highlighted the fact that Racing has been able to continue during significant periods of the Covid-19 pandemic while many other activities including sports have not and most persons involved in the Industry appreciate this is a privilege and make the effort not to undermine this. Therefore, incidents such as this place the integrity and viability of the industry at risk.

[25] The RIB referred to the following decisions:
RIB V Swann (Mar 2022) – Licence to Train – Suspended 3 months and $1000 fine.
RIB V Keegan (Feb 2022) – Licence to train – Suspended 4 months and $4000 fine.
RIB v Hewetson (Dev 2021) – fined $2400.
 RIB V Harvey (Dec 2021) – fined $2700.

[26] There are differences between the four cases, notably both RIB v Swann and RIB v Keegan related to the presentation of false (fake) Vaccine Passes, whereas both Hewetson and Harvey related to border crossing breaches.

[27] In mitigation, the RIB acknowledges that once the Respondent sought legal representation he entered an early guilty plea and agreed to the matter to be dealt with on the papers reducing the need for a costly ‘in person’ hearing.

[28] The RIB summarised its submissions as follows:
a) The Respondent has been involved in the Racing Industry all his life and does not have any history of offending or breaching of the Rules of Racing.
b) The Respondent’s offending is slightly more serious than that of Ms Keegan in that, not only did he deliberately breach the Covid-19 protocol, but he repeatedly             attempted to mislead Mr Styles (Matamata Racecourse Manager) as to his vaccination status. First, by saying that he was vaccinated when in fact he was not               and secondly, by producing a fake ‘My Vaccine Pass’ when confronted a second time.
c) The country, including the Racing Industry, has worked extremely hard to protect New Zealanders from the worst impacts of Covid. Significant sacrifices have                 been made by individuals to protect the public and more vulnerable in our society.
d) Freedom of choice against vaccination does not mean freedom to breach the Rules and breach public trust and confidence in a system designed to protect                     New Zealanders. To attempt to circumvent the clear expectations of the Government and the Racing Industry through deception must be viewed as at the                       serious end of misconduct.
e) The vast majority of people in the Racing Industry have understood and followed the Rules, even if doing so does not always accord with their best interests.                 The Respondent’s choice to flagrantly disregard the Rules to suit his purpose is a serious blow to others within the Industry that have religiously followed the                   Rules.

[29] For these reasons, the RIB believes that the penalty should be slightly more than that of Ms Keegan. Serious consideration needs to be given to a period of suspension or disqualification considering the Respondent’s conduct was a serious breach of public trust and the trust of the racing industry.

[30] The RIB is not seeking costs in this matter.

SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
[31] By way of background, the Respondent is a horse owner, horse breaker and Licensed Trainer based at Matamata who has worked since he was a small child in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry with his parents.

[32] We have considered the references which have been provided by six prominent individuals from all aspects of the Racing Industry, his family and a schoolteacher. It is clear that the Respondent has at a young age developed a positive reputation as a person of great integrity on a personal and professional basis with a rare work ethic preparing horses to a high standard. He is regarded as an excellent horseman and as a very promising young person for the Racing Industry who conducts himself in all aspects of his work professionally and is always respectful and well mannered.

[33] Due to matters beyond his control the Respondent’s personal circumstances changed and at the age of 20 established his own business with his mother involving horse breeding and training to provide financial assistance to members of his family in September 2021.

[34] If the Respondent’s Licence was suspended for any length of time he would be unable to continue with his business which is solely reliant on the Thoroughbred Racing Industry. He would suffer extreme hardship.

[35] An apology letter from the Respondent to NZTR has been provided.

[36] His Counsel submits that in view of the Respondent’s age and corresponding lack of wisdom, his early admission of guilt, future in the industry and the probability that a suspension will cause extreme hardship to him and his family, a substantial fine should be imposed with no suspension.

[37] In the alternative, if a suspension is imposed, it should be suspended for a period of 12 months with the proviso that the Respondent does not breach any Rules of the NZTR during that time.

[38] If a period of suspension must be imposed, it should be limited to a period of one month and a moderate fine in accordance with RIB v Hewetson be imposed.

OUTCOME
[39] As the Adjudicative Committee held in RIB v Keegan, this is a case “where a crucial document has been falsified and presented (used or “altered”) to achieve an advantage and intended to breach the Rules of Racing and to deceive those charged with administering the Rules, such behaviour clearly falls into the category of serious misconduct.

[40] All Trainers enjoy the privilege of a Trainers Licence and with that privilege goes the duty to comply with the Rules of the Profession.

[41] As a Licenceholder, the Respondent deliberately breached a Rule committing a “serious racing offence.”

[42] The RIB referred to the Appeal Tribunal’s decision in RIU v L. In particular, that the penalties are designed to punish the offender for his wrongdoing but they are not meant to be retributive making the punishment disproportionate to the offence.

[43] Importantly, in this case the Adjudicative Committee referred to the following criteria:
• The need to punish a deliberate transgression of the Rules of Racing and mark the Tribunal’s condemnation of such behaviour.
• The need to protect the profession and the public, and to promote confidence in the integrity of the profession.
• To deter not only the offender, but others in the profession who might be tempted to breach the Rule.
• In this case, as the Adjudicative Committee said in RIU v Keegan:
“There is the vital consideration that Racing only has been able to take place, in some form, if the Government conditions are met and honoured by the                           participants.
Any betrayal of the NZTR’s requirements, which is manifestly damaging the whole Industry is especially egregious.

[44] The aggravating features of the Respondent’s breach of the Rules include:
• He created a fake vaccination passport intending to use it so as to deceive others in the Code.
• The actual fraudulent use of it on 3 January 2022, to secure a fraudulent advantage.

[45] The mitigating factors relevant in the Respondent’s case are significant.
• He is a young man aged 20 years with the corresponding lack of maturity.
• Through no fault of his own, he assumed onerous financial and personal responsibilities for others and was subject to very significant stressors when he made                an error of judgment.
• His livelihood is dependent on income derived from his involvement in the Industry.
• Although he has only been licensed to train for a relatively short time, the references provided as to his character and ability are relevant.
• He admitted the breach at the first available opportunity and apologised to the NZTR.
• He has not previously incurred any breaches.
• He is genuinely remorseful.

[46] The RIB submitted the following cases as being comparable:
       RIB v Swann (Mar 2022) – Licence to Train -Suspended 3 months and $1000 fine.
       RIB v Keegan (Feb 2022) – Licence to train – Suspended 4 months and $4000 fine.
       RIB v Hewetson (Dec 2021) – fined $2400.
RIB v Harvey (Dec 2021) – fined $2700.

[47] The facts in Swann and Keegan are comparable. The circumstances of Hewetson and Harvey are quite different and are of limited value in terms of determining an appropriate penalty relative to offending and culpability. However, both highlight the relative impacts of disqualification or suspension and fine.

CONCLUSION:
[48] The RIB submits that the penalty should be slightly more than that imposed on Ms Keegan.

[49] However, the Adjudicative Committee in RIB v Keegan referred to an additional aggravating factor in Ms Keegan’s offending, in particular. Ms Keegan’s initial attempts to deflect the inquiries of the Investigator where it was not a mistake or error of judgment. Ms Keegan had also held a Trainer’s Licence for 14 years.

[50] With regard to the Respondent’s offending it is less serious than Ms Keegan’s for these reasons. In the Respondent’s case his offending was an error of judgment due to his youth, his inexperience as a Licensed Trainer and the very significant personal and financial pressures he was subject to at the time.

[51] However, as in RIB v Keegan “an order for suspension is required taking into account the interests of the profession or Racing and its continued protection, together with the need to deter other Licensees from ignoring NZTR Directives and policy and employing a fraudulent practice. The community and all who are Licenced to participate in racing should know that such behaviour cannot be minimised nor will it be tolerated.”

[52] Having regard to the submissions of the RIB and Counsel for the Respondent we take as a starting point for the suspension, a period of 3 months and a fine of $2,000.

[53] As for mitigating factors we take into account the various matters referred to in particular the Respondent’s youth, his personal circumstances, his admission of the charge, his genuine remorse and the outstanding references as to his character, ability work ethic and integrity.

[54] Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we allow a discount in respect of both the suspension and fine.

[55] We impose a suspension order of 2 months from the date of publication of this decision deferred for 2 weeks, to allow Mr K Pertab if he wishes, to make arrangements for another Licensed Trainer to take over training his horses.

[56] Having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, we refer Mr K Pertab and his Counsel to Rule 1106(1)(a) of the Rules of Racing.
The RIB does not seek costs which is appropriate in this case as this matter was dealt with on the papers.

[57] We make the following orders:
(a) Mr K Pertab’s Licence is suspended for 2 months commencing at 5:00 pm 2 weeks after the publication of this decision (7 June 2022) and to conclude at 5:00 pm on 7 August 2022.
(b) Mr K Pertab is fined $1,500.

DATED the 23rd Day of May 2022

JH Lovell-Smith (Chair)

[Chief Stipe]

Surely by now a precedent has been set and lengthy adjudication decisions aren't necessary?

Note the fine is twice that of Jensen's handed down by Justice Gendall.

[Chief Stipe]

On 23/05/2022 at 3:51 PM, holy ravioli said:

So how did the reference to other racing jurisdictions(as per your OP)impact on costs?

How sad you can't work that out for yourself.  Do you think Justice Gendall had this information at his fingertips?  Or did he engage and underling to do it?

Is Gendall on a fixed rate per decision?

Given prior precedent was a lengthy decision even necessary?