Canterbury JC - 11 August 2010 - R 8
638(3)(b)
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Stipendiary Steward Mr J. Oatham
Defendant: Mr A. C. Browne – Licensed Jockey
Information No: 5631
Meeting: Canterbury Jockey Club
Date: 11 August 2010
Venue: Riccarton Park
Race 8: HANZ 121st Grand National Hurdles Handicap
Rule: 638(3)(b)
Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan, Chairman - P. J. Rosanowski, Committee Member
Plea: Admitted
CHARGE:
Following the running of Race 8, the HANZ 121st Grand National Hurdles Handicap, an
Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr J. Oatham against Licensed Jockey Mr A. C.
Browne under Rule 638(3)(b) alleging excessive use of the whip.
The information reads as follows.
“I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of
Rule 638(3)(b) in that you used your whip excessively over the concluding stages on General Mac.”
Rule 638(3)(b) reads as follows.
“(3) A rider shall not:
(b) strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is unnecessary, excessive or improper”
Mr Browne had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted. He also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
FACTS:
Stipendiary Steward Mr McLaughlin gave evidence and used video coverage to show that “General Mac” (11) was second to last of the 8 runners which were left in the race when jumping the final fence, the other runner having been retired from the race. At this time it was shown that Mr Browne used his whip on 7 or 8 occasions, and while doing so he was passed by the only horse which had been behind him. It was clear by this time that Mr Browne and “General Mac” had no possible chance of finishing in the first five stake bearing places, as these five horses were a considerable distance in front of him.
Mr Browne was asked if he wanted to say anything about the facts of the matter. He said that he did hit his horse on seven occasions only. The Stipendiary Stewards repeated that this use of the whip was excessive in the circumstances, and Mr Browne did not dispute this.
DECISION:
As this breach was admitted it was deemed to be proved in accordance with Rule 915(1)(d).
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:
In relation to penalty Mr McLaughlin said that Mr Browne had no previous convictions for a breach of this Rule, and that his riding record was good. As the breach was admitted Mr McLaughlin recommended a fine of between $200-00 and $250-00.
Mr Browne asked that we consider a suspension instead of a fine, as he was not well off, and this alternative was discussed. We advised that we would consider this alternative to a fine.
We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.
REASONS AND PENALTY:
We were satisfied that the penalty range suggested by Mr McLaughlin was appropriate. We did not consider that this was an appropriate case for a suspension. Our reason for this decision was that on checking on penalties for previous breaches of this Rule we found that a fine was the usual penalty imposed.
As Mr Browne had admitted the breach, had a good riding record and no previous convictions, we decided that an appropriate fine in this case was $200-00.
On resuming the hearing we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and that Mr Browne was fined the sum of $200-00.
