NZ Metro TC - 23 September 2010 - R 9
869(4)
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mrs K. R. Williams, Stipendiary Steward
Defendant: Mr J. C. Hay – Open Horseman
Information No: 69308
Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club
Date: 23 September 2010
Venue: Addington Raceway
Race No. 9: Celebrating 60 Years of Harness Racing at Rangiora Pace
Rule No: 869(4)
Judicial Committee: J. M. Phelan, Chairman - S. C. Ching, Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, the Celebrating 60 Years of Harness Racing at Rangiora Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Open Horseman Mr J. C. Hay alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) in that he drove in a manner likely to cause interference.
The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(4) in that J. C. Hay drove in a manner likely to cause interference to Christian Creek (J. Dunn) when crossing down causing Christian Creek to break and shift over a number of pylons.”
Rules 869(4) reads as follows,
“(4) No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.”
Facts:
Mr Hay had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, and this was confirmed at the hearing. Mr Hay agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
There had been a previous Protest hearing in relation to this matter, and it was agreed that the evidence from that hearing would form the basis for this hearing.
Mrs Williams gave evidence that with about 900 metres to run Mr Hay went to the lead, and when crossing to the marker line he moved down too quickly and forced “Christian Creek” (8) on to the pylons. As a result “Christian Creek” jumped one of the pylons and also hit several of them. As a result “Christian Creek” paced roughly for a short distance. Video coverage which was not available at the protest hearing was used to illustrate this incident.
Mr J. R. Dunn, the driver of “Christian Creek”, gave evidence that when Mr Hay went to the lead he crossed over too sharply, forcing him over the marker line. As a result his horse paced roughly and jumped one of the pylons and knocked others over.
Mr Hay questioned Mr Dunn as to whether there was enough room for him during this incident. The video coverage was used extensively during this questioning, with Mr Hay saying that Mr Dunn’s horse got a “shock” during this movement, and that this caused the incident. It was agreed that there was no contact. It was also shown that at one stage the front off (right) leg of Mr Dunn’s horse was inside the near (left) wheel of Mr Hay’s sulky.
After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.
Decision:
After carefully reviewing the evidence and the video coverage we were satisfied that Mr Hay did cross to the lead too quickly and did force “Christian Creek” on to the pylons. In this respect we accept the evidence of Mr J. R. Dunn. The video coverage also confirmed to us that this charge had been proved.
On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be provided later and we gave the following oral decision.
“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence we are satisfied that with about 900 metres to run Mr Hay was driving his horse to the lead. In doing so he crossed Mr Dunn’s horse too quickly and forced it over the marker line. We find the charge proved.”
Submissions on Penalty:
In relation to penalty Mrs Williams advised that Mr Hay had a previous conviction for a breach of this Rule on 30 April 2010 when he was fined the sum of $250-00. Mrs Williams submitted that the Penalty Guide recommends a starting point for a penalty for a breach of this Rule as a fine of $400-00 and/or a suspension for a period of two weeks.
Mr Hay said that he though a fine of $400-00 was a bit steep, and that he preferred a fine to a suspension.
We adjourned to consider the matter of an appropriate penalty.
Reasons:
On returning to the Enquiry Room we gave the following oral decision.
“Mr Hay we have had consideration as to the appropriate penalty in this case, and we must take into account of course your previous conviction which is only a few months ago. On that occasion you were fined the sum of $250-00. We also take into account that the breach is not at the highest end of the scale, and in the circumstances you will be fined the sum of $350-00.”
Accordingly Mr Hay was fined the sum of $350-00.
