Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1969 > Select Committee on Statutory Instruments (Appointed 7 July 1965) > Report No. 04 - Statutory Instruments [26]

APPENDIX II.

Greyhound Race Track (Racing) Regulations, 1967 (S.I. No. 133 of 1967).

Chief Officer,

Bord na gCon,

104 Henry Street,

Limerick.

A Chara,

I am directed by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to request you to furnish for the information of the Committee a memorandum explaining Article 3 (3) of the Greyhound Race Track (Racing) Regulations, 1967 (S.I. No. 133 of 1967).

In the first place the Select Committee wishes to ascertain what investigations precisely are intended to come within the terms of Article 3 (3) of the instrument. In this connection the Select Committee notes that Article 3 (3) refers to “any investigation duly made under these regulations” whereas Article 16 (2) (i) refers to “any investigation duly made under the Act or under these regulations”. These provisions suggest to the Select Committee that investigations carried out under section 43 (1) of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958 may not be subject to Article 3 (3) of the Regulations although the conduct of such investigations is delegated to the Control Committee by Article 4 (1).

In the second place the Select Committee desires the views of the Board on the powers assumed in Article 3 (3). The Select Committee notes that the Control Committee is empowered to take disciplinary action (including the imposition of fines) against persons who appear to the Committee “to have been guilty of conduct inimical to the breeding or coursing of greyhounds”. To enable the Select Committee to determine if this provision constitutes an unusual or unexpected use of the Board’s statutory power it would welcome the observations of the Board on (1) the assumption of power to punish persons for conduct which was not at the time of commission a breach of a specific regulation. (2) the statutory authority for empowering the Control Committee to impose fines, and (3) why Article 3 (3) is not confined to investigations carried out by the Control Committee itself.

Cléireach an Roghchoiste.

16 Samhain, 1967.

Cléireach an Roghchoiste,

Seanad Éireann,

Baile Átha Cliath.

A Chara,

With further reference to your letter of 16th November, I enclose, as requested, a memorandum for the information of the Select Committee explaining Article 3 (3) of the Greyhound Race Track (Racing) Regulations, 1967, (S.I. No. 133 of 1967).

Príomh Oifigeach p.p. P.B.H.

5th December, 1967.

Memorandum from Bord na gCon.

1. The investigations intended to come within the terms of Article 3 (3) of the Instrument are those investigations carried out by the Control Committee under Section 43 (1) of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958, by virtue of the power delegated to the Control Committee by Article 4 (1). Section 44 of the Act provides for investigations by authorised officers at any Race Meeting or Public Sale of Greyhounds. Such an investigation is conceived to be an investigation under the Act and not under the Regulations. The phrase in Article 16 “any investigation duly made under the Act or under these Regulations” is intended to include an investigation by an authorised officer under Section 44. If the authorised officer does not deal with the matter on the spot but makes a report to the Control Committee this body would carry out an investigation which would constitute “an investigation under these Regulations”.

2. In McDonald v. Bord na gCon (1965 I.R. 217) one of the grounds advanced by the Plaintiff against the constitutionality of the Board’s power to make an Exclusion Order under Section 47 of the Act was that it involved power to punish persons for conduct which was not at the time of commission a breach of a specific regulation. In the judgment of the Supreme Court at p. 244 Mr. Justice Walsh dealt with the objection in the following terms:—

“It has been submitted with some force that until the inquiry is brought to the attention of the person concerned he may have no reason to know that the conduct which is being impugned is conduct which is capable of leading to the making of an Exclusion Order against him. Examining that in the light of opinion already given above the person will know, even before the episode, (a) that it must be some occurrence arising in one of the ways already mentioned, and (b) of a nature which injures or is calculated to injure the Greyhound Industry. Furthermore these matters will be determined on an objective basis only. Within those limitations the field of investigation might appear to be wide but it is admittedly not practicable to attempt to list all the possible forms of conduct which may be reasonably thought to injure or tend to injure the Greyhound Industry and which arise in the form of an incident or occurrence. The same objection might however be made by any person whose conduct may lead to his becoming a Defendant in any action for tort. Yet could any such Defendant be heard to say that he was not given in advance a list of all the possible acts on his part which could be reasonably held to be the wrong alleged? Similarly a person connected with the Greyhound Industry whether trading, betting or otherwise participating in it or attending at its meetings etc., should be expected to be aware of what type of conduct might reasonably be held to be injurious or inimical to the Greyhound Industry. If he were judged and excluded otherwise than by that standard he would have been dealt with in respect of matters not permitted by the Act and would have his remedies in law.”

It is submitted that these observations apply to the assumption of power to punish persons for conduct which was not at the time of commission a breach of a specific regulation.

3. At the outset, I should state that the Board has no statutory authority to empower the Control Committee to impose fines. The only disciplinary power which the Board has is to make a Disqualification Order against a greyhound under Section 45 of the Greyhound Industry Act or to make an Exclusion Order against a person under Section 47 of the Act. In practice the Board has found this to be a considerable handicap because in many cases the type of misconduct established at an investigation is clearly conduct tending to injure the Greyhound Industry and which ought to be deterred by a penalty but is not of sufficient gravity to warrant the extreme penalty of an Exclusion Order or Disqualification Order. The offenders are willing to pay a moderate fine and the Board has found that a system of imposing fines in the region of £2 to £10 has worked well and is a much lesser hardship on persons concerned. In fact fines have been imposed in only 4 cases in 1967 to date.

4. For the reasons explained at (1) above it is believed that Article 3 (3) is confined to investigations carried out by the Control Committee itself.