By CAM LUCADOU-WELLS
A GREYHOUND trainer has been re-sentenced over striking a greyhound to the head with excessive force as he tried to place the dog into a starting box at Tooradin Trial Track.
Bradley Keel, 37, was disqualified for 18 months – with 15 months suspended for three years – and fined $750 at the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal on 8 March.
It superseded a wholly-suspended 18-month disqualification and $750 fine from the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board in September.
Greyhound Racing Victoria stewards had appealed the board’s decision to VCAT.
In her VCAT decision, Judge Marilyn Harbison stated she took into account the “significant hardship” that would rise from Keel’s disqualification.
Keel would effectively lose his housing and income during disqualification, Judge Harbison said.
“Some period of disqualification is in my view appropriate having regard to the serious nature of this offence and the need to send a clear message to the industry that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
“(Greyhounds) are not money making objects – they are defenceless living beings and the community expects they will be treated with compassion and care, in private and in public.”
In sentencing, she accepted Keel’s “positive contribution” to greyhounds for 20 years, there was no evidence of him committing other similar acts, and that he was unlikely to re-offend.
Judge Harbison said the act had not been clearly captured by two hidden cameras, which were installed to prove illegal live-baiting at the track on 23 December 2014.
She noted Keel had not been involved with live-baiting, which is the use of live piglets, rabbits and possums as lures to ‘blood’ greyhounds.
Keel, a trainer for 20 years, later admitted to investigators he had struck the dog to the face, which “jarred back” the dog’s head.
He conceded to stewards it was a quick “brain snap”. He had been angered by the dog’s non-cooperation.
Judge Harbison was unable to find whether Keel had punched or slapped the dog. She agreed with both parties that the force was excessive but not brutal.
She noted video footage showed the dog “happily wagging its tail” and interacting well with Keel at the end of the trial. There was no evidence of injury.
“It shows a degree of comfortableness between Mr Keel and the dog which is a contrast to what one may have expected if this use of force were a regular pattern of conduct towards the dog.”
Keel’s lawyer argued the respondent had also suffered serious threats after a social media campaign released footage of the incident.
The footage was looped to appear he struck the dog several times, Judge Harbison noted.
