BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on a disqualification hearing for a greyhound trainer was inaccurate and unfair. The complainant argued the broadcast’s description of the facts leading to two charges against the trainer (related to failing to ensure the welfare of two dogs), was misleading. The complainant also argued it was unfair to comment on the trainer’s potential disqualification sentence before it had been finalised, impeding the trainer’s ‘right to a fair trial’. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading overall, or reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, and did not give rise to any unfairness to the trainer. The public interest in the story outweighed the low risk of harm.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on Newshub Live at 6pm, broadcast on 30 October 2023, concerned the hearing of a greyhound trainer who was to be suspended due to mistreatment of animals. It was introduced by the newsreaders:

One of the country's highest earning greyhound trainers, is set to be kicked out of the industry after one of his racing dogs tested positive for methamphetamine and another was mistreated.

John McInerney, who trains hundreds of dogs in Darfield near Christchurch, will be disqualified for a period of up to 18 months.

But animal welfare groups say the penalty is weak and he'll continue to make money despite the disqualification. Investigations Correspondent Michael Morrah has this exclusive report.

[2]  The item then included the following relevant excerpts:

Morrah:       John McInerney is a greyhound track kingpin. He made more than 1.5 million dollars on the track in the past season. But today, at a Racing Integrity Board penalty hearing, he was told he was facing disqualification of between 12 to 18 months. 

SAFE Investigations Head: The thought of a dog testing positive for methamphetamine is abhorrent. The fact that he's been disqualified, likely for a year, maybe 18 months at most, doesn't go far enough. 

[Footage of greyhound Alpha Riley winning a race]

Racing Commentator: ...and Alpha Riley is in a great vein of form... 

Morrah:       McInerney's dog Alpha Riley, had something else in its veins in April this year, methamphetamine was detected after routine testing. 

[Footage of greyhound Impressive Isla coming last in a race]

Morrah:       And in October last year, another of his dogs, Impressive Isla, was, according to investigators, in clear and visible pain and distress. But advice from a vet was not sought immediately. Impressive Isla had an osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer. McInerney who has been racing for more than 30 years, told the hearing he didn't know it was so serious and did give the dog pain relief. [Greyhound Protection League (GPL) Representative] does not buy that. 

GPL Representative: I don't accept that anybody, especially not somebody who had been dealing with greyhounds for as long as Mr McInerney. I do not accept that he could not have known that there wasn't something more sinister at play. 

Morrah:       The greyhound racing industry's boss told Newshub, "There is no place in our industry for those who breach animal welfare standards, or for those who use drugs like methamphetamine, in the vicinity of racing dogs." Greyhound Racing New Zealand CEO Edward Rennell told Newshub greyhounds are regularly drug tested and there has never been a case of deliberate administration of methamphetamine to a racing dog, only of meth contamination. It is not yet clear how the dog was contaminated, but the hearing heard McInerney's [family member], who looked after the dogs, had a history of drug issues. With McInerney disqualified, work is already underway to transfer ownership of his dogs to [another family member]. 

SAFE Investigations Head: The penalties that he's facing are completely weak because he can just transfer those dogs into his [family member’s] name. It's going to be the same kennels that are operating from probably a lot of the same staff, and he will continue to make money off of these dogs. 

Morrah:       [GPL Representative] says this makes the penalty inconsequential. 

GPL Representative: It’s a loophole and it needs to be closed.

The complaint

[3]  Greyhound Racing New Zealand Inc (GRNZ) complained that the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

Accuracy

• The statement, ‘McInerney's dog Alpha Riley had something else in its veins in April this year – methamphetamine was detected after routine testing’ with accompanying footage of the dog winning in a race was misleading as the audience would think the dog had meth in its system during that race, when it did not. The positive test was a routine, out-of-competition test.
• The statement, ‘And in October last year, another of his dogs, Impressive Isla, was according to investigators in “clear and visible pain and distress” but advice from a vet was not sought immediately’ with accompanying footage of the dog tailing off at the back of a race misled the audience into thinking medical advice was not sought after this race, when it was – the dog was found to be injured, prescribed pain medication and was stood down from racing.
• It was inaccurate to state McInerney ‘trains hundreds of dogs’ when he has not trained any dogs for months.
• It was inaccurate to claim that McInerney ‘will continue to make money off these dogs’ as the disqualification means McInerney will be unable to hold any kind of licence in the industry or be allowed on any racetrack, which has the practical effect of being unable to profit or ‘make money’ from the industry during this period.
• It was inaccurate to claim McInerney ‘made more than 1.5 million dollars on the track in the past season’ as he does not own all of the dogs he trains (owners often receive a significant portion of prize money) and does not take into account the costs involved in doing this. It should have stated the dogs he trained made $1.5 million on the track.

Fairness

• ‘Mr McInerney’s penalty hearing was held on the morning of 30 October 2023, with the [Racing Integrity Board (RIB)] Adjudicative Committee reserving their decision until later that week. Therefore, when the broadcast aired on Monday night, the Committee had not yet decided on the length of disqualification. Their written decision was published on 3 November 2023.’
• ‘The broadcast included a number of aspects which appeared to try and pervert the course of justice and influence the RIB Adjudicative Committee’s decision as to the severity of penalty that they would impose, and also appeared to cast aspersions on intent and knowledge of Mr McInerney, which again, was a matter for the RIB Adjudicative Committee to rule on. This consequently clearly had the potential to impinge on Mr McInerney’s right to a fair trial.’
• ‘The RIB Adjudicative Committee previously agreed with our sentiments expressed above in a recently published decision relating to this broadcast¹’, making the following comments:

34. The Adjudicative Committee expresses on the strongest of terms, its displeasure at aspects of reporting that occurred on 30 October 2023. The Adjudicative Committee accepts… that it would be difficult to construe the commentary of SAFE and GPL as anything other than an attempt to improperly influence the Adjudicative Committee’s outcome as to penalty, on which it was still deliberating at the time.

35. This is a serious intrusion on the proper administration of justice, and the Adjudicative Committee agrees with the submissions that had such actions taken place within the purview of the Courts, the parties responsible for those comments would likely be facing serious consequences.

36. The Adjudicative Committee also observes that Newshub, as an established and respected member of the media landscape, would be expected to be very familiar with Court reporting protocols and guidelines. It was indeed reckless to broadcast commentary as to the ultimate penalty while the Adjudicative Committee was still deliberating on that matter.

37. The Adjudicative Committee also notes the increased risk it holds in deriving its powers as a matter of statute and regulation, being powers that are much more limited than those of the Courts, and as such, the Adjudicative Committee has limited ability to sanction actions of this nature.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold GRNZ’s complaint, saying:

Accuracy

• It is important to consider the broadcast in its entire context. The story was about a high-profile greyhound trainer whose dog had tested positive for methamphetamine. The trainer, John McInerney, had admitted this charge and another charge for failing to provide for another of his dogs suffering from bone cancer.  The facts of the story were accurate – a greyhound registered as being trained by McInerney tested positive for methamphetamine.
• Newshub correctly identified both dogs. Both dogs featured in the broadcast were the dogs in question. Using footage in a television news item to accurately identify a person or subject is standard broadcasting industry practice.
• ‘We strongly refute that the Broadcast intended to "deliberately mislead the New Zealand public." The viewer was not left confused or misled – the viewer was informed that one of McInerney’s dogs had tested positive for methamphetamine. This is true and accepted as fact by McInerney and GRNZ… Stating the dog had "something else in its veins" in April this year is accurate. Routine testing of the dog returned a positive test for methamphetamine in April.’
• ‘It was made clear in the Broadcast that this was not a case of deliberate administration of methamphetamine, but rather it was what the industry calls "contamination".’
• ‘On the facts presented in relation to the number of dogs McInerney trains and his winnings from greyhound racing, [WBD] is satisfied reasonable efforts were made to ensure the veracity of these claims. We have not identified any material errors of fact, nor do we consider the audience was significantly misled.’
• ‘The Broadcast reported concerns among animal welfare groups about McInerney’s ability to continue making money even when disqualified. This opinion was raised by both SAFE and the GPL. [WBD] maintains these views were readily identifiable as opinion which is acceptable under the Accuracy standard and which the audience would have recognised.’

Fairness

• ‘The Adjudicative Committee had decided at its hearing that McInerney would be disqualified from the sport. This was never in dispute and was accurately reported. The only matter up for deliberation was the duration of the disqualification. McInerney had been sentenced to disqualification. It was accurate, necessary and important to report this, and [WBD] has found no unfairness in reporting this fact.’
• ‘Given the controversial topic under discussion which is a matter of significant public interest and considering the GRNZ CEO’s statement was faithfully reported in full, [WBD] does not agree that the Broadcast was unfair to either the greyhound trainer or the wider industry. We are satisfied that any possible damage to the trainer and/or greyhound racing industry’s reputation resulting from the Broadcast arises only from the factual information that was presented rather than the way the trainer or organisation were treated.’

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard² is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[6]  The fairness standard⁴ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[7]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[8]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression, and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁶

[9]  In this case, the broadcast carried value and public interest as it concerned matters of animal welfare in an industry that is coming under increased scrutiny by the media and the government.⁷ Accordingly, we can only limit this exercise of free expression where the harm caused by the broadcast proportionally outweighs this right.

[10]  We do not consider the alleged harm outweighed the public interest or the right to freedom of expression in this case, for the reasons outlined below.

Accuracy

[11]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.⁸

[12]  The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[13]  Additionally, the standard is concerned only with ‘material’ inaccuracies. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁹

[14]  The complainant identified five aspects of the item it considered to be misleading, outlined in paragraph [3] above. We deal with each of these in turn below.

Misleading impression Alpha Riley tested positive for methamphetamine while racing

[15]  The complainant’s concern here is that the combination of video and audio in the item created a misleading impression Alpha Riley was racing with methamphetamine in its system (when the positive test occurred out of competition).

[16]  The item stated, ‘McInerney's dog Alpha Riley, had something else in its veins in April this year – methamphetamine was detected after routine testing’. This statement was accompanied by footage of the dog winning a race.

[17]  We accept it is possible some viewers may have initially conflated the statement and the footage, and drawn the conclusion that the dog was racing, and/or won the race, with methamphetamine ‘in its veins’.

[18]  However, viewing the item as a whole, we do not consider the audience was materially misled on this point, taking into account:

• The race footage served to visually identify the dog for viewers.
• The item did not explicitly state the dog won the race due to methamphetamine or tested positive while racing. If the dog had tested positive in connection with a race, the audience could reasonably expect this would be directly commented on and scrutinised rather than left as a meaning potentially read into the footage (particularly when there was a discussion of how this incident occurred later in the item).
• It was accurate to report the dog had methamphetamine ‘in its veins’. Whether that was during the race shown or at another time was not a significant distinction in the context of a story focused on the trainer’s failures (which he had accepted) with respect to ensuring animal welfare.
• The remainder of the item made it clear the dog tested positive due to contamination rather than deliberately administering the drug to the dog (and that it was not yet clear how the dog was contaminated, although reference was made to drug use by a member of McInerney’s family).
• The item also included comment from GRNZ on this point, stating ‘greyhounds are regularly drug tested and there has never been a case of deliberate administration of methamphetamine to a racing dog’.

[19]  We find no breach of the accuracy standard on this point.

Misleading impression of timeline surrounding Impressive Isla being checked by a vet

[20]  Our understanding of the factual background is that Impressive Isla was checked by a vet after the race pictured in the broadcast and prescribed pain medication (for a torn leg muscle).¹⁰ Approximately three weeks later, the dog was in severe pain and had been for a number of days.¹¹ When eventually checked again by a vet, the dog was found to have cancer and was immediately euthanised.¹² No pain medication was detected in the dog’s system.¹³ McInerney’s suspension concerned not seeking medical attention for the dog in this period of three weeks after the race pictured in the broadcast.

[21]  The relevant statement in the broadcast was: ‘And in October last year, another of his dogs, Impressive Isla, was, according to investigators, in clear and visible pain and distress. But advice from a vet was not sought immediately. Impressive Isla had an osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer. McInerney who has been racing for more than 30 years, told the hearing he didn't know it was so serious and did give the dog pain relief.’

[22]  We do not consider this statement was materially inaccurate or misleading in summarising the factual background detailed above. This is because:

• The footage visually identified Impressive Isla for the audience and was open to interpretation (especially for the average viewer) whether the dog was ‘in clear and visible pain and distress’ – with any apparent difficulty manifesting as falling into last place in the race.
• The race footage was not explicitly linked to the voiceover or to investigators saying the dog was ‘in clear and visible pain and distress’ – although it is possible some viewers would have conflated those.
• The key point conveyed was that the dog did not receive medical attention while in clear and visible pain and distress (and the dog later being euthanised upon discovering its cancer) – resulting ultimately in McInerney accepting a charge of failing to ensure its welfare.
• Whether this occurred immediately after the race shown, or three weeks later, was not material to the audience’s understanding of this and the charge against McInerney.
• McInerney’s response on this point was included: ‘he didn't know it was so serious and did give the dog pain relief’.

[23]  We find no breach of the standard on this point.

It was wrong to state ‘[McInerney] made more than $1.5 million on the track in the past season’

[24]  The complainant has alleged this was inaccurate as: this figure was the winnings of dogs he trained, many of which he did not own; owners often take some or all of the winnings from their dogs, depending on arrangements made with the trainer; and the figure did not account for the cost of training the dogs.

[25]  The statement that the money was made ‘on the track’ was arguably ambiguous and open to interpretation as to whether McInerney personally made that amount, or the dogs he trained had generated those earnings.

[26]  In any case, we do not consider the difference between stating ‘McInerney made $1.5 million on the track’ and ‘dogs trained by McInerney made $1.5 million on the track’ would have materially affected the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole. The point being conveyed – in the context of reporting on the charges against McInerney (which he had accepted) and impending suspension – was that McInerney was a successful greyhound trainer, whose animals were earning a considerable amount of money. We do not consider more precise language around the exact amount McInerney made personally, or further detail about how winnings are apportioned or how much it costs to train dogs, were material to the focus of the story.

McInerney ‘trains hundreds of dogs’

[27]  The complainant alleged this was inaccurate as McInerney had not trained any dogs for months.

[28]  Publicly available information demonstrates that in the seasons leading up to the broadcast, McInerney had trained hundreds of dogs.¹⁴ We do not consider the difference between ‘trains hundreds of dogs’ and ‘until recently has trained hundreds of dogs’ would have a material impact on the audience’s understanding of the item.

McInerney could ‘continue to make money’ while disqualified

[29]  During the broadcast, the SAFE Investigations Head stated, ‘The penalties that he's facing are completely weak because he can just transfer those dogs into his [family member’s] name. It's going to be the same kennels that are operating from probably a lot of the same staff, and he will continue to make money off of these dogs’. The complainant said in further correspondence with the Authority that ‘Mr McInerney's disqualification means that he actually cannot stand to benefit from the greyhound racing industry anymore. He is not able to hold any kind of licence in our industry during his period of disqualification, and the effect of our comprehensive Rules of Racing are that all disqualified people are not allowed to benefit from the sport during their period of disqualification’.¹⁵

[30]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.¹⁶ We consider the statement by the SAFE Investigations Head was analysis comment or opinion, as they were making a prediction about the future and the likely practical effect of the disqualification.¹⁷ However, analysis, comment or opinion must still be accurate in relation to the underlying facts it is based on.¹⁸

[31]  The GRNZ Rules of Racing set out the impact a disqualification is to have. The rules would bar McInerney, as a disqualified person, from undertaking a broad range of activities related to the greyhound industry.¹⁹ The rules also allow for the imposition of penalties on any person (connected in some way to greyhound racing) who is unable, when called upon to do so, to satisfy the Adjudicative Committee they have no ‘connection or association’ with a disqualified person.²⁰ The latter rule is likely to expose any person, to whom McInerney transferred his dogs or other interests, to penalties if they sought to share future proceeds with him.

[32]  The Authority is not in a position to speculate on the outcome of theoretical activities that may test the edges of these rules. However, in the context, we accept it may be misleading (on the basis of inconsistency with underlying facts) to state ‘It's going to be the same kennels that are operating from probably a lot of the same staff, and he will continue to make money off of these dogs’.

[33]  We then turn to whether reasonable efforts were made to ensure accuracy. The interviewee who made this claim was a representative of animal rights and welfare group SAFE. SAFE is a significant animal welfare organisation (with total assets of over $3m and total revenue of approximately $2.5m for 2023)²¹. Advocacy for greyhounds is a key aspect of their work.²² and the relevant comments were from SAFE’s Investigations Head. In our view, it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on SAFE’s Investigations Head to have some knowledge and expertise concerning the Rules of Racing and the likely effect of the disqualification.

[34]  On this basis we consider the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, and do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Conclusion

[35]  We have not found actual or potential harm under the accuracy standard which outweighs the public interest in the item or justifies restricting the right to freedom of expression. 

[36]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[37]  The purpose of the fairness standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.²³ It states individuals and organisations have the right to expect they will be dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.²⁴ Core elements of deciding whether the standard was breached typically include considering: whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individual or organisation;²⁵ whether a participant was fairly informed of the nature of their contribution to the broadcast; and whether they were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment if they were likely to be adversely affected by the broadcast.²⁶

[38]  GRNZ has not raised any of these aspects as contributing to unfairness to McInerney. Its concern is only that the broadcast impeded McInerney’s ‘right to a fair trial’ by reporting on his disqualification before the RIB’s decision on this had been finalised, and broadcasting opinions that the potential sentence was not sufficient. GRNZ considered that similar reporting would be illegal in a formal court setting, and in effect was publicly pressuring the RIB Adjudicative Committee to enforce a harsher sentence. It said the RIB Adjudicative Committee echoed these concerns in its decision and expressed strong displeasure with the broadcast for the same reasons.

[39]  It is not the role of this Authority to determine whether procedural fairness has been impacted in another forum, or whether the rules of the RIB (or any other tribunal or court) have been complied with. Our role is to apply the fairness standard and guidelines to this particular broadcast.

[40]  We do not consider the broadcast gave rise to any unfairness to McInerney as envisaged by the fairness standard, taking into account:

• McInerney had already accepted the charges and the RIB Adjudicative Committee had already decided – at a public hearing on the day of the broadcast – that disqualification would be the penalty (with just the length to be confirmed).²⁷
• The difference between a suspension of 12 or 18 months was not so significant that reporting on the penalty hearing, rather than the finalised sentence four days later, should not be allowed.²⁸
• McInerney received a sentence of 6-month and 12-month suspensions for the two charges, to be served concurrently. Combining the outcome with comments by the RIB Adjudicative Committee criticising the reporting, it would appear it wasn’t ultimately influenced by the item or groups advocating stronger penalty.
• There was public interest in the story, McInerney’s conduct and the proceedings, and the comments from SAFE and GPL. These comments were broader than just criticism of the RIB’s decision and the length of disqualification – they concerned the alleged inadequacy of RIB Adjudicative Committee penalties generally, and suggested loopholes exist in the wider system. This outweighed the low risk of harm under the fairness standard.

[41]  For these reasons, we do not consider regulatory intervention or restricting the right to freedom of expression is justified. We do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
8 April 2024    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  GRNZ's complaint to WBD - 20 November 2023

2  WBD's response to the complaint – 18 December 2023

3  GRNZ's referral to the Authority – 18 December 2023

4  WBD confirming no further comments – 20 December 2023

5  WBD’s comments on reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy (requested by the Authority) – 6 March 2024

6  GRNZ’s response to submission on reasonable efforts – 11 March 2024

7  Further comments from GRNZ on Rules of Racing – 19 March 2024

8  WBD re-confirming no further comments – 22 March 2024

¹ Racing Integrity Board “Non Raceday Inquiry – Decision as to Media Application dated 3 November 2023 – John McInerney” (Decision date: 3 November 2023 / Publishing date: 6 November 2023)  
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁴ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁷ See for example: “Greyhound racing 'no longer viable', decision delayed on its future” Stuff (online ed, 23 May 2023); “Calls for PM to ban greyhound racing after deaths” RNZ (online ed, 13 February 2024)
⁸ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
⁹ Guideline 6.2
¹⁰ “Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 3 November 2023 – John McInerney” Racing Integrity Board (3 November 2023) at [3].
¹¹ As above, at [18] and [3]
¹² As above, at [5]
¹³ As above, at [7]
¹⁴ See “Trainer Premiership: 2022/23 TRAINERS PREMIERSHIP” Greyhound Racing New Zealand : J T McInerney is listed as having fielded 217 dogs; see also Jake Kenny ‘Top racing trainer failed to provide proper care for greyhound, inquiry finds’ Stuff (online ed, 28 February 2022)
¹⁵ See Rules 174, 178 “Regulations Of The New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated Including The Rules Of Racing” Greyhound Racing New Zealand (9 August 2023). See also Rule 3: Suspend “Constitution of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated” Greyhound Racing New Zealand (15 November 2018)
¹⁶ Guideline 6.1
¹⁷ See for example Jarvis and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-135, where COVID-19 modelling was taken to be analysis rather than a statement of fact
¹⁸ Guideline 6.1
¹⁹ As above, see Rule 178, 174 “Regulations Of The New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated Including The Rules Of Racing” Greyhound Racing New Zealand (9 August 2023)
²⁰ As above, see Rule 174 “Regulations Of The New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated Including The Rules Of Racing” Greyhound Racing New Zealand (9 August 2023)
²¹ ”2022/23 Annual Report” Safe (2023) see page 31
²² ”Ban Greyhound Racing” Safe (accessed 20 March 2024) ; ”2022/23 Annual Report” Safe (2023) see page 15
²³ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁴ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁵ Guideline 8.1
²⁶ Guidelines 8.2, 8.4
²⁷ “Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 3 November 2023 – John McInerney” Racing Integrity Board (3 November 2023) at [32] – counsel for McInerney submitted suspension was appropriate.
²⁸ As above. We note the decision does not state the preliminary finding contained in the news item, that the suspension was to be 12-18 months. This fact has not been contested by the complainant, however.