Auckland TC - 30 April 2010 - R 5
869 (4)
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr J Muirhead – Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr M Jones
Information No: 68606
Meeting: Auckland Trotting Club
Date: 30 April 2010
Venue: Alexandra Park
Race: 5
Rule No: 869 (4)
Judicial Committee: Mr B Rowe, Chairman – Mr B Scott, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
This is an information filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr J MUIRHEAD against Mr M JONES driver of SHEZONEOFTHEBOYZ alleging a breach of the above rule in that he caused interference to RHYTHMIC SUN driven by Mr R BROSNAN causing it to break and lose its chance when he moved inward making contact with the near hind leg of RHYTHMIC SUN racing into the first bend.
Mr JONES admitted the breach and was present at the hearing.
This charge was filed subsequent to the associated protest hearing at which SHEZONEOFTHEBOYZ was disqualified from 2nd placing.
Mr MUIRHEAD showed the film of the incident. He said SHEZONEOFTHEBOYZ moved inwards, there was contact by its sulky wheel with the near hind leg of RHYTHMIC SUN which “ran” for two strides and then broke. He said Mr JONES and Mr BROSNAN were both looking for the same position, they got close, there was contact, but “not much”.
Mr JONES said he did not believe he had done anything wrong, there was no contact, but he had admitted the breach because the committee had upheld the protest and not accepted his evidence then.
Mr JONES was told by the chairman that being an experienced horseman he knew the procedures. As he admitted the breach the committee were bound by the rules to find the charge proven. However, he could seek leave to change his plea and if the charge was then found proven, he had a right of appeal. The chairman asked Mr JONES how he wished to proceed.
Mr JONES said he would continue with his “guilty plea”. He said he had not put any pressure on Mr BROSNAN, Mr BROSNAN had not called out, he did not move inwards quickly and was ahead of the other horse and was entitled to ease it down.
PENALTY
Mr MUIRHEAD said the recommended starting point for penalty was a fine of $400 and/or 2 weeks suspension. He said Mr JONES had no breaches of the rules recorded against him in the last 12months, the offending was mid-to-lower on the scale of seriousness but there was the consequential affect of the disqualification and also this was a Premier Meeting. He recommended a fine in the region of $400.
Mr. JONES said that the offending was at the lower end of the scale, his actions were not intentional, he had a good driving record and had admitted the breach.
In fixing penalty the committee takes into account the guilty plea, the submissions of Mr MUIRHEAD and Mr JONES, the excellent driving record of Mr JONES, the offending was in the lower half on the scale of seriousness and the recommended starting point which in fact is a fine of $600 and/or 3 weeks suspension because there was a disqualification. The committee also takes into account the stake money payable for the race ($70,000) – rule 1114 (2) (b).
Balancing all of those matters but with emphasis on the excellent driving record and the offending being in the lower half of the scale, despite the disqualification, a fine of $400 is imposed.
B Rowe B Scott
CHAIR Committee Member
68604
