The Referrals Committee, Mr Justice Tony Hunt (Chairperson), Mr Raymond McSharry and Mr John Murphy convened at Offices of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on Friday, 30 August 2024 to consider the referral of John Joseph Hanlon (Trainer) into potential breaches of the Rules of Racing.
On the day, the Referrals Committee considered submissions on behalf of the IHRB by Ms Christine Traynor, IHRB Head of Racing Regulation and Integrity and on behalf of Mr Hanlon by Stephen Lanigan-O’Keeffe. Evidence was heard from Mr Hanlon and Dr Lynn Hillyer, IHRB Chief Veterinary Officer and Head of Equine Anti-Doping.
Having considered the submissions, Justice Tony Hunt issued the following decision on behalf of the Referrals Committee on Thursday, 5 September 2024:
1. On the afternoon of Friday 14 June 2024, Mr Hanlon removed a deceased horse from a paddock at Ballygorteen, County Kilkenny to a knackery in County Carlow. The carcass was contained on an open trailer, drawn by a horsebox festooned with images identifying it as the property of Mr Hanlon. Although there had been some attempts by Mr Hanlon to conceal the carcass from public view by covering it with a tarpaulin prior to departure from the paddock, these had failed completely by the time the box and trailer combination reached Paulstown, County Kilkenny at around 5pm, such that the carcass was completely uncovered and fully visible to members of the public.
2. This situation was noticed by a driver travelling immediately behind the combination at Paulstown. He commented adversely on the actions of Mr Hanlon, readily identifying him by means of the illustrations on the horsebox. He recorded the images on his phone, and these were subsequently circulated to a wide audience on social media. The adverse publicity then spread to the conventional media. Mr Hanlon’s conduct thereby attracted significant public opprobrium and adverse comment, relating to both Mr Hanlon personally and to the racing industry generally. The IHRB therefore initiated an investigation on Sunday 16 June 2024.
3. As a consequence of that investigation, the IHRB charged Mr Hanlon with breaches of Rule 272(i) (acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of the sport), Rule 272(ii) (the provision of false or misleading information to investigating IHRB officials), Rule 273(xiii) (actions prejudicial to the interests of the IHRB or likely to cause serious damages to horse- racing in Ireland), and Rule 148(iii) (being responsible for the failure of a veterinary surgeon retained by the trainer to complete an entry in the passport of the deceased animal regarding the previous administration of a medical product prohibited in a food-producing animal). The evidence served on Mr Hanlon in advance of the hearing and presented to the Committee was contained within the formal Investigation Report compiled under the supervision of Dr Lynn Hillyer, IHRB Head of Veterinary.
4. The Referrals Committee convened at the offices of the IHRB on Friday 30 August 2024 to consider these matters. Mr Hanlon was represented at the hearing by Stephen Lanigan-O’Keeffe SC and Niall Flynn BL, instructed by Whelan Law Solicitors, of Cashel, Co Tipperary. The referral was presented by Christine Traynor, solicitor and Head of Racing Regulation & Integrity, IHRB.
5. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Lanigan-O’Keeffe made several admissions on behalf of Mr Hanlon regarding his conduct and the consequences thereof, and a submission as to possible duplication within the charges presented for consideration. In the light of the admissions, no further live evidence was required in addition to the material contained in the Investigation Report provided to the Committee prior to the hearing, save that the Committee heard explanatory evidence from Dr Hillyer relating to the alleged breach of Rule 148(iii). The Committee also heard evidence from Mr Hanlon in relation to the charges against him.
6. Having considered the evidence and the admissions by Mr Hanlon, the Committee was satisfied that the IHRB had established that Mr Hanlon was in breach of Rule 272(i), by reason of the fact that he transported a deceased animal through Paulstown in a completely uncovered state, using a highly identifiable horsebox, which caused significant prejudice to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of the sport of horse-racing. The Committee was satisfied that the prejudice caused by the conduct of Mr Hanlon was compounded by the wide dissemination on various social media platforms of the recording of these events, and the ensuing adverse reaction and commentary. Having considered the initial submission of Mr Lanigan-O’Keeffe, the Committee was satisfied that this finding was proportionate to the evidence presented, and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider the charge under Rule 273 (xiii).
7. Although the Committee was also satisfied that Mr Hanlon had misled IHRB officials in the early stages of the investigation in relation to the issues of who had attempted to secure the covering of the deceased animal prior to departure, who was driving the horsebox and when the tarpaulin had been recovered after the incident, it decided that these matters should be considered as factors relating to the sanction to be imposed in relation to the established breach of Rule 272(i), rather than being the subject of a separate breach of Rule 272(ii).
8. Finally, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Hanlon was in breach of Rule 148(iii), on the basis that the trainer remained responsible under Rule 148 for checking and ensuring that relevant sections of the passport are updated, even where a veterinary surgeon was primarily retained by him for that purpose.
9. The Committee then heard submissions as to sanction from both parties in relation to the two rule breaches described above. In view of the gravity of the matter, the Committee wished to consider the evidence and submissions before finalising sanctions, and indicated that it would communicate the final decision within one week of the hearing, with any clarifications or consequential matters to be dealt with thereafter, if possible by correspondence, or by a further remote hearing if necessary.
10. Having duly considered these matters, the Committee concluded that Mr Hanlon was grossly negligent in the supervision of the transport of the horse carcass on the day in question, and that the breach of Rule 272(i) therefore involved high culpability on his part. Factors increasing culpability were as follows:-
1) Although there was evidence of attempts prior to departure to cover the carcass on the trailer by means of a tarpaulin secured by bungee cord and concrete bricks, these were obviously entirely inadequate, as the tarpaulin had disappeared completely by the time the box and trailer combination had reached Paulstown.
2) The fact that Mr Hanlon was in a hurry to reach the knackery by closing time at the time he secured the carcass in the trailer was not relevant to his level of culpability in this regard. The delay in leaving with the carcass was said by him to relate to the late arrival of a tractor to lift the carcass onto the trailer. However, Mr Hanlon had intended at all stages from early that morning to use the particular open trailer to transport the deceased horse. He therefore had ample time to consider and prepare for the securing of the carcass in that trailer, irrespective of the time of the actual arrival of the tractor at the paddock. The fact that the securing of the carcass was completed in a hurry was simply evidence of negligence and was not a mitigating factor in these circumstances.
3) The importance of proper respect for the carcass of the deceased animal ought to have been well-known to all trainers, including Mr Hanlon, following recent high-profile public controversies concerning the shortcomings of trainers and riders in other cases, and the outcome of referrals to this Committee in that regard.
4) The fact that Mr Hanlon was compelled to use his larger personalised horsebox rather than an unavailable jeep was also irrelevant to his level of culpability. Mr Hanlon made the point that the field of visibility behind the box was smaller than if his jeep had been available for use. Allowing that this was the case, this was a circumstance that called for additional caution, consideration and monitoring, and was not a mitigating factor. Mr Hanlon also knew from early on in the day that his illustrated horsebox would ultimately form half of the transport combination. There was ample time to prepare a careful plan for the delicate operation of transporting a dead carcass over a significant distance on the public roads between the paddock and the knackery.
5) Mr Lanigan O’Keeffe sought to draw an analogy between this situation and the circumstances of a fatality occurring on the racecourse. The Committee rejected this proposed analogy, for the reason that Mr Hanlon was not responding spontaneously and immediately to the instant and unforeseen death of the animal in public competition. The animal in this case was discovered in the early morning to have died during the previous night in a private paddock. Mr Hanlon’s task was to attend to the removal of the carcass for disposal in a considered and sensitive manner, and to have due regard to the public aspect of the journey involved in that process. The minimum requirement was that the carcass be transported securely, discreetly and invisibly, in deference to both the deceased animal and the sensitivities of members of the public. It might also be expected that the carcass and trailer would have been monitored occasionally during the journey for the safety and security of all concerned. He ought to have appreciated the need for caution, and that any deficiencies in this process would have been magnified, as they actually were, by the large, personalised and readily identifiable markings on his horsebox.
6) His appreciation of these matters should have been sharpened by the fact that these events occurred in a particular context. Earlier that week, RTE transmitted a “Prime Time Investigates” programme relating to serious equine welfare issues, albeit in a much broader Irish and European context concerning live animals. The broadcast touched on issues relating to Irish racing and mentioned Mr Hanlon and other Irish trainers. Mr Hanlon issued public statements and participated in media discussions concerning these matters in the following days. By 16 June, Mr Hanlon was undoubtedly as aware as anyone of the heightened public sensitivity to equine welfare issues arising from the RTE broadcast, and this awareness ought to have informed his actions on that day. He was also well aware of his public prominence as a successful trainer, specifically referenced by the distinctive “#TeamHewick” logo on his horsebox. His gross negligence in the transport of the carcass was therefore particularly injurious to the good reputation of the sport when taken in that context. His general media prominence and his previous public commentary on the RTE broadcast no doubt contributed to the intense level of controversy and criticism that sprang from his apparent involvement in the subsequent Paulstown incident.
7) Mr Hanlon’s obfuscation and inconsistency in the accounts given to investigating officials in the immediate aftermath were also factors aggravating culpability. However, the admissions made on the morning of the hearing meant that it was unnecessary for the Committee to consider these matters in detail, or to come a separate conclusion in terms of a rule breach in respect thereof. However, they could not be ignored entirely and are factored into the final decision of the Committee.
11. The actual consequences of Mr Hanlon’s incompetence were significant and avoidable. His negligence caused a substantial level of critical public commentary which undermined communal confidence in the sport at a time of particular sensitivity for racing and the horse industry generally. Mr Hanlon clearly gave no thought to the possible consequences of his actions before taking a carcass out on the public road without taking reasonable steps to ensure that it could be transported effectively and discreetly. The fact that his conduct was not deliberate or intentional did not differentiate it in any meaningful way from the conduct involved in recent comparable cases, without considering the misleading of officials, or of the comparative lateness of the admissions by the trainer in this case.
12. Having weighed the submissions and considered the factors listed above, the Committee considered that the gross negligence of Mr Hanlon, and the consequences and context of the breach of Rule 272(i) were such that the appropriate sanction was the withdrawal of his licence for a period of 10 months, and that his culpability could not be adequately reflected by a financial penalty. The Committee considered that this sanction was also justified by the requirement to be as consistent as possible in sanctioning breaches of Rule 272, and that others previously penalised in this manner in broadly similar circumstances would be justifiably aggrieved if a different approach was adopted in this case.
13. The fundamental fact of this matter is that Mr Hanlon indulged in an unacceptable level of risk-taking in the means of transport of the deceased animal, resulting in the significant reputational damage referred to above. The Committee considered that the circumstances and consequences of this case were broadly aligned with those of the previous referrals listed below, and therefore accepted the submission of Ms Traynor that the facts and context of this matter passed the threshold for withdrawal of Mr Hanlon’s licence to train. It is by now well-established that the time for a lenient or tolerant approach to the treatment of deceased sport horses is long gone. The details of this case required more than the imposition of a purely financial sanction. The deterrence of preventable carelessness and lax standards by licensed trainers in matters capable of affecting the public standing of the sport is essential. Licensees are participants in a sport which receives significant public funding, and must also be cognisant of the deep affection that many people have for horses. The public are therefore entitled to hold legitimate expectations and concerns as to the humane and respectful treatment of both live and dead sport horses, and the IHRB must respond appropriately to those expectations and concerns by the meaningful enforcement of reasonable standards of conduct by licensed participants in the sport.
14. In relation to the breach of Rule 272(i), the Committee identified a headline sanction of 10 months withdrawal of Mr Hanlon’s licence to train, together with a fine of €2000. The fine was levied at a significantly lower level than that advocated by the IHRB, in anticipation of the financial and other consequences for Mr Hanlon of the primary sanction of withdrawal of his licence. In this regard, the Committee had regard to Mr Lanigan O’Keeffe’s submission that, although Mr Hanlon has enjoyed significant success during his training career, in the overall statistics he is situated outside the top tier of trainers.
15. The Committee then considered the mitigating factors that applied to the headline sanction. In this regard, it noted that Mr Hanlon had no relevant previous record of rule breaches, and that the admissions which were finally forthcoming on the morning of the hearing were of substantial assistance to the Committee in disposing of the charges referred to it. In addition, the subsequent joint impromptu inspection of his training establishment by the IHRB and officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on 17 June 2024 revealed that his live charges were properly treated and that all welfare and other matters were in order.
16. To reflect these matters, and recognising the financial, reputational and other burdens of a meaningful withdrawal of a licence to train, the Committee is disposed to consider a future application to conditionally suspend the last five months of the 10 month withdrawal sanction. The possible partial suspension of such a sanction to reflect mitigating factors is consistent with the previous approach of this Committee in the cases of Gordon Elliott (Trainer), Mr Robert James (Rider/Handler) and AJ Martin (Trainer), and the Committee considers that it would be unfair to Mr Hanlon not to adopt a comparable approach on the facts of this case.
17. However, such a suspension will only be justified if the Committee is satisfied that Mr Hanlon satisfactorily observed the following conditions during the first five months of the period of withdrawal:-
1) Not to knowingly participate in training-related related activities or gallops,
2) Not to issue instructions to any jockey or other trainer as to the training or riding of any horse,
3) Not to enter or attempt to enter any weigh-room, parade ring or any other area of a racecourse restricted to licensees of the IHRB,
4) To give notice of any application to suspend after the expiry of an initial period of four months, to allow the IHRB to consider and respond to the matter prior to an application to suspend being processed by the Committee. It should be noted that the grant of a suspension of licence withdrawal is not automatic, and the grant or the conditions and duration thereof will be determined by reference to the full factual context of the application.
18. Compliance with these conditions is now required in the light of the recent decision of this Committee in the case of AJ Martin (Trainer), which clarified the consequences and requirements of a penalty of withdrawal of licence. Therefore, early renewal of or re-application for a licence following withdrawal will not arise if the initial sanction of withdrawal of licence has been circumvented, such that it did not apply in a real and meaningful manner to the licensee concerned.
19. In relation to the breach of Rule 148(iii), the Committee was satisfied that the facts of that matter were such that the imposition of a financial sanction was appropriate. Mr Hanlon had retained reputable veterinary surgeons to treat his horses, and three out of four of the passports in question were properly completed to reflect the treatment and medication administered. The exception was the passport relation to the deceased horse in issue here, and the primary responsibility for that omission admittedly lay with the veterinary personnel employed to deal with this matter. This had the consequence that, while the animal was alive, the passport was such that there was a possibility in other circumstances that the animal could have entered the human food chain. However, that possibility did not eventuate in this case. Mr Hanlon was in breach of Rule 148(iii) because the law imposes concurrent obligations on the passport holder to ensure that proper entries are made in these circumstances, a fact that all licensed trainers should note. The Committee therefore imposed a fine of €350 in respect of this rule breach.”
Mr Hanlon was represented at the hearing by Mr Stephen Lanigan-O’Keeffe SC and Mr Niall Flynn BL, instructed by Whelan Law Solicitors, of Cashel, Co Tipperary. The referral was presented by Ms Christine Traynor, IHRB Head of Racing Regulation & Integrity.