NZTR Submission

Home Page Breaching the Rules Deducted and Paid All Matters Submitted Written Permission Direction of Board Kypros Kotzikas Appeal Rights Natural Justice Edmund Burke

Date: 7 February 2004 Subject: APPEAL BY MR V MIDDELDORP The memorandum dated 3 February 2004 from the Chairman of the Appeal Judges, refers to Part IV of the Rules of Racing and invites submission. The Rules of Racing comprise Rules, Schedules and Appendices. Some of the Rules are administrative and mechanical, while others are instructions, directives or requirements. In many, but not all, cases failure to comply with a rule is deemed to be a “breach” of the Rules and may be subject to penalties as provided for in Rules 1001 or 1003. Part IV of the Rules pertains to "Horses, Owners, Ownership, Syndicates, Approved Companies, partnerships, Syndication and Colours". Rules 401 - 11 contain Rules which are general as to horses and the registration of horses. Contained in these Rules (401 - 411) are administrative and mechanical rules as well as rules that require compliance - the failure to do so provides it is a breach of the Rules. Rules 401, 405, 406, 408, 410 are administrative (or mechanical) rules that provide a process for matters to be attended to and do not incur a penalty for any act or omission as provided 1or in Rule 1002. There are provisions in Rules 402, 403, 404, 407, 409, 411 that any person who, by act or omission, fails to comply therewith commits a breach of the Rules and is therefore liable to the penalties as set out in Rules 1001 and 1003. Rule 405(3) is the authority given under the Rules of Racing for a special levy to be collected by NZTR on behalf of the N2ROF. Rule 405(1) and (2) details the process for registration. Rule 405 is not a rule that can be "breached". Every effort has been made to explain this, fact to Mr Middeldorp. The reference to the Chief Executive, as is the case in many of the Rules, is reference to the office of  Chief Executive, not the individual. Any misdemeanor on his behalf may be an employment issue, but the responsibility for the Chief Executive continues to remain that of the Board of NZTR. Again, we have explained this to Mr Middeldorp on a number of occasions and made reference to it in our submissions made to the Judicial Committee and the Appeal Judges. NZTR had no objection to Mr Middeldorp receiving an independent explanation from the JCA of the two issues above as it might have appeased him. However, at no stage was there consent from NZTR for the Judicial Committee to sanction leave for the filing of an Information.  We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the matters raised.