GAR 99.3 (b): Unless the Controlling Body in special circumstances otherwise directs, a person who has been disqualified, warned off or declared as a defaulter is not permitted to transact any business affecting the registration of persons or greyhounds with the Controlling Body.
GAR 99.3 (e): Unless the Controlling Body in special circumstances otherwise directs, a person who has been disqualified, warned off or declared as a defaulter is not to have any of the rights or privileges conferred by any registration pursuant to these Rules.
GAR 99.3(f): Unless the Controlling Body in special circumstances otherwise directs, a person who has been disqualified, warned off or declared as a defaulter is not eligible to otherwise participate in or associate with greyhound racing and any greyhound which has been nominated by the person or in the person’s name, or of which the person is wholly or partly the owner or which is proved to the satisfaction of the Controlling Body to be pursuant to the person’s care, custody or training, is prohibited from competing in any Event.
GAR 100: The period of penalty imposed on a person who is disqualified or warned off shall automatically be deemed to have recommenced as from the most recent date of the person breaching Rule 99.
On Wednesday, 5 November 2014 the Stewards of Greyhound Racing Victoria conducted an inquiry and found that Mr. Wright had breached the conditions of his disqualification in that he had undertaken activities within the greyhound racing industry whilst a disqualified person.
Acting under GAR100 the stewards determined that his period of disqualification recommence on 10 September 2014 and thereby terminates on 10 December 2014.
During the investigation, Stewards received evidence from registered trainer Mr. Kevin Wright and Mr. Carl McGrath (Club Manager).
Mr. Wright lodged an Appeal with the RADB against the decision to have his period of disqualification recommence.
Mr. Kevin Wright did not appear at the hearing of his Appeal.
Mr. Huntington spoke about the investigations he had conducted which traversed the specific issue of Mr. Wright’s possible breach of the disqualification conditions and more generally as to the circumstances of the matter.
Whilst the RADB accepted the evidence of Mr. Huntington it did accede to a preliminary submission that it had no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Section83J of the Racing Act limits the RADB jurisdiction to- speaking generally- appeals from the imposition of penalties.
This was made clear in the RADB ruling in the James matter. More recently the RADB has declined to enter disputation on what are administrative matters – see Rilen. GAR100 creates no new penalty rather it refixes administratively a penalty commencement date.
In declining jurisdiction the RADB noted that the provisions of GAR100 as not imposing a penalty could be seen as counter-intuitive.
Further the relation of GAR100 with GAR99 can lead to anomalous and perhaps unfair situations. Consider a GAR99 breach occurring in the first week of a period of disqualification with one occurring in the last week.
Finally it was noted that a case could be made that breaches of GAR99 be dealt with as ‘serious offences’.
The RADB requested Mr. Fish to consider these observations and to take such action as might be warranted.
Accordingly this Appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.