Harris v The Racing Integrity Board - [2023] NZHC 3361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-307

[2023] NZHC 3361

BETWEEN
PAUL DAVID JOSEPH HARRIS

Applicant

AND

THE RACING INTEGRITY BOARD

Respondent

Hearing: 26 September 2023

Appearances:

S M Grieve KC and S J Bird for Applicant B H Dickey and D B Dow for Respondent

Judgment:

24 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 November 2023 at 11.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HARRIS v THE RACING INTEGRITY BOARD [2023] NZHC 3361 [24 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 12 October 2021, on the advice of two vets, a five-year-old bay mare named Riverfalls was euthanised.

[2] On 8 December 2021, the Racing Integrity Board (the Board) instituted proceedings against Paul Harris, a Canterbury-based horse trainer, and Rebecca Rae, a licensed stable hand employed by Mr Harris, in relation to Riverfalls’ death.

[3] The charge,1 which was brought under r 801(1)(s)(i) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc Rules of Racing 2021 (the Rules),2 alleged that between 6 June 2021 and 12 October 2021, Mr Harris and Ms Rae committed a serious racing offence because they “failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical health needs of the horse ‘Riverfalls’ were met, resulting in that horse’s condition deteriorating to such state that it was required to be euthanised, an act detrimental to the interests of racing”.

[4] The Board convened an adjudicative committee (the Committee) to hear the charge. It sat over five days in April and May 2022.

[5] Prior to the hearing, counsel for Mr Harris requested further particulars of the charge. The Board declined to provide those. After closing arguments, the Committee issued a ruling amending the charge on its own motion to list seven particulars (the Ruling).

[6] Mr Harris then appealed the Ruling. He contended the amendment after the case had finished irreparably prejudiced his defence.

[7] An appeals tribunal (the Tribunal) heard his appeal on the papers and dismissed it on 26 July 2022. Mr Harris then initiated these proceedings for judicial review of the Committee’s ruling and the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his appeal. The Committee has stayed its proceeding pending the outcome of this application.

1 Although it is also referred to as “the information” by some participants in the process, I use the more commonly understood term “charge” throughout this judgment.
2 The Rules were made pursuant to s 37 of the Racing Industry Act 2020.

The grounds of review

[8] Mr Harris advances three grounds of review, having abandoned one ground when the Committee accepted that the Board could not lead further evidence in support of the amended charge.

[9]The remaining grounds are as follows:

(a)the charge is ultra vires the Rules and the Racing Industry Act 2020 (the Act) because;

(i)the charge as amended does not allege conduct contrary to r 801(1)(s)(i) as it fails to identify a positive act as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harris v The Racing Integrity Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 3361
Decision Date: 24 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Harris v The Racing Integrity Board, Dunningham J found that the Racing Integrity Board’s charge against Mr Harris was ultra vires the Racing Industry Act 2020 and the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc Rules of Racing 2021. The Court held that the charge was not particularised as it required and that the proceedings were therefore invalid as they did not identify a positive act but only an omission. The Court noted that the charge focused solely on omissions and did not allege a positive act as required by the relevant rule. The Court also held that the Tribunal was lawfully constituted and that the Committee’s amendment of the charge did not breach natural justice or the right to a fair trial. The Court did not determine the merits of the evidence in support of the charge, leaving that to the Committee to assess. The Court did, however, find that the particularisation of the charge was not prejudicial to the applicant as it allowed him to adduce further evidence if he wished to do so. The Court reserved costs, suggesting that it may be an appropriate case for costs to lie where they fall.

Orders