South Canterbury RC - 14 May 2010 - R 6

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:      Mr J McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:     A Mundy - Licensed Jockey

Information No:  5621

Meeting:  South Canterbury Racing Club

Date:  14 May 2010

Venue:  Phar Lap Raceway

Race:              6

Rule No:  638(3)(b)

Judicial Committee:  KG Hales, Chairman and J Millar, Committee Member

Plea:  Admitted

Also Present:  Mr R Neal - Stipendiary Steward

FACTS:

The Information alleged as follows:

“A Mundy, rider of “Oraka Blue” used her whip in an excessive manner prior to the 200 metre mark.”

Rule 638(3)(b) reads as follows:

“Rule 638(3)(b).  A rider shall not:

(b)        Strike a horse with a whip in a manner or to an extent which is

unnecessary, excessive or improper.”

In this case, the emphasis was on “excessive manner”.

Mr Neal demonstrated the incident with the assistance of the video coverage. 

He showed the hearing how Ms Mundy had struck her horse between 12 and 13 times in a relentless manner, without relief as is required by the recognised recommendations concerning the use of the whip, prior to the 200 metre mark. 

Ms Mundy was asked to comment on the matter.  Ms Mundy agreed that she had struck the horse in the manner alleged, and had no further comments to make.

SUBMISSION ON PENALTY:

Mr McLaughlin said that Ms Mundy has not appeared on this kind of charge before, in her six years of active race riding.  In fact, she had only very recently appeared for the first time ever before a Judicial Committee on a charge. 

Mr McLaughlin recommended that a fine of between $150 and $250 should be imposed. 

Ms Mundy had no submissions to make concerning the penalty, other than to say that she believed that a fine was an appropriate penalty.

REASON(S):

The following oral decision was delivered:

“We have given careful consideration to the charge, and to the penalty submissions.  We note that you have admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity, and we thank you for your admissions in relation to the charge in the hearing. 

We agree that a fine is the appropriate penalty.  In the usual circumstances, the starting point for a fine would have been in the region of $200 to $250 but we have given you credit for the matters we have already referred to and to your excellent record. 

Accordingly, we are able to discount the penalty in this case to $175.”

DECISION:

Ms Mundy was fined $175.

K G Hales                    J Millar

CHAIR                        Committee Member