Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v D J Branch – Decision on Penalty dated 14 November 2012
ID: JCA10474
Decision:
HRNZ v DJ BRANCH
HEARING BEFORE NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Judicial Committee: B J Scott, Chairman - A J Dooley, Committee Member
Counsel: Mr J M Muirhead - Counsel for HRNZ,
Mr M D Branch - Counsel for Mr Branch
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY
1. Introduction:
1.1 In our substantive decision in this matter we requested the parties to make submissions as to penalty.
1.2 The parties took the opportunity to present submissions in writing with the Informant’s submissions received first and the Defendant’s following that.
2. Submissions by Mr Muirhead:
2.1 In his submissions to us Mr Muirhead stated that in considering penalty the Judicial Committee should have regard to:
(a) The gravity of the offence, including the charge, the importance and outcome of the race and whether any consequential effects resulted from the offence.
(b) Whether the defendant admitted the charge.
(c) The personal circumstances of the defendant, including experience, previous offences.
(d) Penalties imposed for comparable offences.
2.2 Mr Muirhead also referred us to Rule 1114(2) which provides:
“On finding a breach proved the Judicial Committee may impose any penalty and/or affect any remedy provided by these Rules. In imposing a penalty or affecting any remedy provided in these Rules the Judicial Committee may have regard to such matters as they consider appropriate including:-
(a) the status of race:
(b) the stake payable in respect of the race;
(c) any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of breach of the Rule;
(d) the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing.”
2.3 In dealing with the gravity of the charge Mr Muirhead then pointed out that the incident giving rise to this charge resulted in the relegation of Mr Branch’s horse on race night.
2.4 Mr Muirhead then provided to us details of the personal circumstances of Mr Branch. That information was essentially statistical information as to his driving experience and any prior charges.
2.5 Mr Muirhead then drew our attention to the JCA Penalty Guidelines which provide a starting point penalty for Careless Driving Causing a Relegation to be a suspension of license for 10 drives or a $500.00 fine.
2.6 It was Mr Muirhead’s further submission that the carelessness in this charge was below medium point in terms of seriousness but he did say that this had to be balanced by the relegation of Mr Branch’s horse.
2.7 It was Mr Muirhead’s submission that any penalty should be either a suspension of license for six drives or the imposition of a fine of $300.00.
He further submitted that although the RIU did not seek costs it was the RIU’s position that Mr Branch should be liable for an account from Magness Video Ltd for $90.00 plus GST for services for this defended Hearing. He pointed out that this included the cost of providing video coverage of the race on the 9th of December 2011 which was used by Mr Branch in his defence.
3. Submissions by Mr Branch:
3.1 In his submissions Mr Branch (Snr) referred to sentencing guidelines and submitted that sentencing guidelines under the heading Careless Driving provide some examples and guidelines as to how the assessment should be undertaken. Examples of aggravating features are:
(a) Relegation resulted:
(b) Major race:
(c) Horse fell/driver injured.
3.2 He further submitted that the first of those aggravating features is already covered because the starting point under the guidelines for interference which caused or resulted in a relegation is $500.00 as against the $400.00 which otherwise applies.
3.3 He then submitted that neither of the other two aggravating features apply here.
3.4 Mr Branch then submitted that a mitigating circumstance was that Mr Branch (Jnr) relies on the fact that the horse contributed to the incident.
3.5 A further submission from Mr Branch was there were some factual errors in the judgment that should be corrected or ignored when assessing penalty. In particular:
(a) It is said in paragraph 1.18 that Mr Branch advised that “…he had struck his horse with a whip at least twice and he said he did so because it was running out”.
Mr Branch then stated that with respect, there was no such evidence and it defies common sense in that Mr Branch is right-handed and accordingly the last thing you would do would be to hit the horse on the right-hand side when it was running out to the left.
(b) He then referred to paragraph 3.13 where it was stated that “…it would seem strange that Mr Dickie would call out to [Mr Branch] at a very late stage and after the interference had occurred”.
He stated that the evidence from Mr Branch was that he had taken corrective measures at the time Mr Dickie called out but the horse did not respond sufficiently to avoid the interference.
Mr Branch further submitted that this finding, together with the statement in paragraph 3.6 that “it should be noted that at the protest hearing Mr Branch did not blame his horse” gives the impression that there was a story made up after the initial enquiry to blame the horse.
It is submitted that such an inference is not justified and is unfair to both Mr Branch and his Counsel. If an honest belief had not been held that the failure of the horse to respond as a normal horse should have, caused the interference, then the defence would have not been run. Taking the matter to a defended Hearing was not a profitable exercise and it was only undertaken because of a view that the charge was unwarranted.
It is further submitted that, in the circumstances, the finding should not have been made because:
(i) The race night judgement records that “Mr Branch submitted that Cuedee Algranco paced roughly during the race. He said that it ran in on the bends and shifted out in the straights”; and
(ii) The relegation hearing is not in the least bit concerned as to the cause of the interference. The issue is whether there was interference and whether that interference justified a change to the placings. Advising the JCA that the horse had caused the interference would not have affected the result and was therefore irrelevant. It is also pointed out that Mr Branch was never asked during the Hearing why he had not (if indeed he had not) blamed the horse in the first Hearing.
In summary, it is submitted that these factual matters should be corrected, or at least excluded, from any consideration on penalty.
3.6 A further submission was that it is also considered relevant that Cuedee Algranco, when subsequently driven by Mr Brent Mangos, again raced erratically.
3.7 Finally it is submitted that any penalty should be consistent with similar offences.
3.8 Mr Branch also made submissions in respect to a Careless Driving charge concerning Junior Driver Mr L. He gave what he submitted were some relevant excerpts from that decision.
3.9 In this case he then submitted:
(a) The result would have been the same had the interference not occurred.
(b) The horse clearly played some role in the interference as had it not initially run out to the extent that it did then the interference would not have occurred.
(c) The owners who have lost the difference between the second and third place stakes do not blame Mr Branch.
(d) Mr Branch is a junior driver and some regard should be had to the fact that junior drivers are not as experienced in handling difficult horses if only because those types of horses are not usually placed in junior driver races.
(e) Mr Branch does not work full-time in a stable and accordingly does not have exposure to a wide range of horses.
(f) It is correct that Mr Branch works part-time for the Auckland Trotting Club but he is also a part-time student at Auckland University, which requires a significant financial commitment.
(g) Mr Branch also trains two horses which again are more often than not likely to be a drain on financial resources than a benefit.
(h) What can confidently be said is that Mr Branch’s outgoings in many months exceed his income and he can only remain involved in the industry with the support of his parents.
(i) In setting fines, making those fines “hurt” a junior driver does not really reduce the chances of reoffending because these are not deliberate acts. However, fining young people with relatively low levels of income can undermine the resolve of those people to stay in an industry which, quite frankly, operates on very low profit margins.
3.10 Mr Branch then submitted that in all the circumstances a penalty in the sum of $200.00 is appropriate.
3.11 He then dealt with the submission from the Informant seeking that Mr Branch meet the costs payable to Magness Video Ltd.
3.12 He has submitted that this is not appropriate as the only reason this became a non-race day Hearing is because the Information was not served on Mr Branch until late in the evening and at such a time that the Hearing could not be held before the end of the race night.
3.13 He submitted that accordingly Mr Branch is not the reason why this matter was not heard on race night. He therefore should not be liable for the Magness Video Ltd costs. The extent (if any) to which there was any cost caused by looking at the additional film had not been identified.
3.14 For the same reasons, it is submitted it would be inappropriate for there to be a costs award in favour of the JCA.
4. Reasons for Penalty:
4.1 The Committee has considered the submissions of both of the parties and has also taken into account the findings that it made in its decision.
4.2 In his submissions, Mr Branch has suggested that the Committee made one or two errors with findings of fact. With respect to Mr Branch, we did not.
4.3 Suffice it to say that we relied on the oral and visual evidence presented to us. That evidence included statements from Mr Branch that although his horse was running out in the straight he was driving it out to the finish and only straightened it when he had to. Further to that the video evidence clearly shows Mr Branch using his whip in his right hand when the horse was running out to the left.
4.4 Mr Branch (Snr) referred to paragraph 3.13 of the decision. He then states that the evidence from Mr Branch (Jnr) was that he had taken corrective measures at the time Mr Dickie called out but the horse did not respond sufficiently to avoid the interference. We did not accept that at the Hearing and as far as we were concerned, Mr Branch took corrective action far too late.
4.5 Mr Branch (Snr) then referred to paragraph 3.6 in our decision. This Committee has dealt with many Protest Hearings over the years and we accept that the cause of any interference is not a necessary element in a Protest Hearing. It is rather whether interference occurred or not and the affect of that interference.
It is our experience however that in most cases if the Driver believes that it was his or her horse at fault then he or she would state that at the Protest Hearing. Mr Branch did not do so.
4.6 Mr Branch (Snr) then refers to the racing habits of Cuedee Algranco and in particular that at the Hearing Mr Branch (Jnr) submitted that the horse ran in on the bends and shifted out on the straights. We have dealt with that in our decision by pointing out that firstly Mr Branch (Jnr) had previously driven this horse, secondly that he was aware of the horse’s tendencies particularly when it was racing down the back straight and thirdly that he was forewarned as to what it might do in the home straight. We were told at the Hearing that he was pressing his horse in the home straight to achieve the best possible position and in our view he did not take enough notice of the horse’s racing tendencies even though, as we have said above, he was forewarned of this.
There was also reference to the fact that Cuedee Algranco raced erratically when subsequently being driven by Mr Mangos. The horse did run out on that occasion in the home straight but Mr Mangos immediately took corrective action and the horse responded and probably ran out less than half the distance than it did when driven by Mr Branch.
4.7 We were referred to the charge involving Mr L and asked to be consistent as far as penalty is concerned. We do not believe that that decision is relevant because it did not involve a relegation.
4.8 In his further submission Mr Branch said “the result would have been the same had the interference not occurred.” That is mere conjecture and based on the way in which Mr Dickie’s horse finished the race after the interference we would not accept Mr Branch’s submission as being correct.
4.9 Mr Branch in his further submission stated “the horse clearly played some role in the interference as had it not initially run out to the extent that it did then interference would not have occurred.” We do not accept that and should point out to Mr Branch (Jnr) that as the Driver he is the one responsible for ensuring that his horse runs correctly and that he does not cause interference. We understand that in some races horses will suddenly duck out and catch a Driver by surprise but there is no element of surprise in this situation and the outward movement was over a distance of more than 100 metres in the straight and Mr Branch had plenty of time to take corrective action.
4.10 Mr Branch (Snr) submits that a fine in the sum of $200.00 is appropriate and we have Mr Muirhead’s submission that a fine of $300.00 is appropriate. We are going to set the fine in between both of those figures. Whilst we accept that Mr Branch (Jnr) is entitled to defend a charge against him we do not accept that there was a great deal of merit in his defence. This was a charge of Careless Driving and clearly he was careless.
4.11 We also refer to Mr Branch (Snr’s) submissions as to the reason why this charge became a non race day Hearing and as a result a charge was incurred with Magness Video Ltd in the amount of $90.00 plus GST. Mr Branch (Snr) submits that the reason for this matter becoming a non race day Hearing was because the Information was not served on Mr Branch (Jnr) until late in the evening. We are concerned about that submission because the evidence given to us at the Hearing was that Mr Branch (Jnr) attended an enquiry with the Race Night Stewards with several different Senior Horsemen. We understood that to be at least five different horsemen and we have to wonder why that occurred. A Senior Horseman should have been able to look at the films and advise Mr Branch as to his position and it was not necessary for several different Senior Horsemen to be assisting Mr Branch. These, in our view, were unnecessary delays caused by Mr Branch. The Stipendiary Stewards should not have allowed Mr Branch the opportunity to attend the enquiry with the number of Senior Horsemen that he did and on the number of occasions that he did. This was most accommodating but unnecessary. This naturally caused delays and the Stipendary Stewards had to complete their enquiries first before arranging for an Information to be served on Mr Branch.
Mr Branch has, in our view, to accept his share of the responsibility for the delays which then resulted in this charge being the subject of a non race day Hearing. It is also pertinent to note that the video films presented at the Hearing included the earlier race from the 9th of December 2011 at the request of Mr Branch. This was not required by the Informant. We think that it is entirely reasonable that Mr Branch should be responsible for the costs from Magness Video Ltd.
4.12 We have previously stated that we see little merit in Mr Branch’s defence. He drove carelessly and caused a relegation and on the balance of probabilities it was very clear to us that he drove carelessly.
4.13 We do take into account his circumstances, as presented to us, and the fact that he is a Junior Driver but we also note that he has a prior charge of Careless Driving on the 13th of January 2012.
Penalty:
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 30/10/2012
Publish Date: 30/10/2012
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 047eff3508f289d57f3bec6d4ff1a9f8
informantnumber: A2479
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 30/10/2012
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v D J Branch - Decision on Penalty dated 14 November 2012
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
HRNZ v DJ BRANCH
HEARING BEFORE NON RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Judicial Committee: B J Scott, Chairman - A J Dooley, Committee Member
Counsel: Mr J M Muirhead - Counsel for HRNZ,
Mr M D Branch - Counsel for Mr Branch
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON PENALTY
1. Introduction:
1.1 In our substantive decision in this matter we requested the parties to make submissions as to penalty.
1.2 The parties took the opportunity to present submissions in writing with the Informant’s submissions received first and the Defendant’s following that.
2. Submissions by Mr Muirhead:
2.1 In his submissions to us Mr Muirhead stated that in considering penalty the Judicial Committee should have regard to:
(a) The gravity of the offence, including the charge, the importance and outcome of the race and whether any consequential effects resulted from the offence.
(b) Whether the defendant admitted the charge.
(c) The personal circumstances of the defendant, including experience, previous offences.
(d) Penalties imposed for comparable offences.
2.2 Mr Muirhead also referred us to Rule 1114(2) which provides:
“On finding a breach proved the Judicial Committee may impose any penalty and/or affect any remedy provided by these Rules. In imposing a penalty or affecting any remedy provided in these Rules the Judicial Committee may have regard to such matters as they consider appropriate including:-
(a) the status of race:
(b) the stake payable in respect of the race;
(c) any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of breach of the Rule;
(d) the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing.”
2.3 In dealing with the gravity of the charge Mr Muirhead then pointed out that the incident giving rise to this charge resulted in the relegation of Mr Branch’s horse on race night.
2.4 Mr Muirhead then provided to us details of the personal circumstances of Mr Branch. That information was essentially statistical information as to his driving experience and any prior charges.
2.5 Mr Muirhead then drew our attention to the JCA Penalty Guidelines which provide a starting point penalty for Careless Driving Causing a Relegation to be a suspension of license for 10 drives or a $500.00 fine.
2.6 It was Mr Muirhead’s further submission that the carelessness in this charge was below medium point in terms of seriousness but he did say that this had to be balanced by the relegation of Mr Branch’s horse.
2.7 It was Mr Muirhead’s submission that any penalty should be either a suspension of license for six drives or the imposition of a fine of $300.00.
He further submitted that although the RIU did not seek costs it was the RIU’s position that Mr Branch should be liable for an account from Magness Video Ltd for $90.00 plus GST for services for this defended Hearing. He pointed out that this included the cost of providing video coverage of the race on the 9th of December 2011 which was used by Mr Branch in his defence.
3. Submissions by Mr Branch:
3.1 In his submissions Mr Branch (Snr) referred to sentencing guidelines and submitted that sentencing guidelines under the heading Careless Driving provide some examples and guidelines as to how the assessment should be undertaken. Examples of aggravating features are:
(a) Relegation resulted:
(b) Major race:
(c) Horse fell/driver injured.
3.2 He further submitted that the first of those aggravating features is already covered because the starting point under the guidelines for interference which caused or resulted in a relegation is $500.00 as against the $400.00 which otherwise applies.
3.3 He then submitted that neither of the other two aggravating features apply here.
3.4 Mr Branch then submitted that a mitigating circumstance was that Mr Branch (Jnr) relies on the fact that the horse contributed to the incident.
3.5 A further submission from Mr Branch was there were some factual errors in the judgment that should be corrected or ignored when assessing penalty. In particular:
(a) It is said in paragraph 1.18 that Mr Branch advised that “…he had struck his horse with a whip at least twice and he said he did so because it was running out”.
Mr Branch then stated that with respect, there was no such evidence and it defies common sense in that Mr Branch is right-handed and accordingly the last thing you would do would be to hit the horse on the right-hand side when it was running out to the left.
(b) He then referred to paragraph 3.13 where it was stated that “…it would seem strange that Mr Dickie would call out to [Mr Branch] at a very late stage and after the interference had occurred”.
He stated that the evidence from Mr Branch was that he had taken corrective measures at the time Mr Dickie called out but the horse did not respond sufficiently to avoid the interference.
Mr Branch further submitted that this finding, together with the statement in paragraph 3.6 that “it should be noted that at the protest hearing Mr Branch did not blame his horse” gives the impression that there was a story made up after the initial enquiry to blame the horse.
It is submitted that such an inference is not justified and is unfair to both Mr Branch and his Counsel. If an honest belief had not been held that the failure of the horse to respond as a normal horse should have, caused the interference, then the defence would have not been run. Taking the matter to a defended Hearing was not a profitable exercise and it was only undertaken because of a view that the charge was unwarranted.
It is further submitted that, in the circumstances, the finding should not have been made because:
(i) The race night judgement records that “Mr Branch submitted that Cuedee Algranco paced roughly during the race. He said that it ran in on the bends and shifted out in the straights”; and
(ii) The relegation hearing is not in the least bit concerned as to the cause of the interference. The issue is whether there was interference and whether that interference justified a change to the placings. Advising the JCA that the horse had caused the interference would not have affected the result and was therefore irrelevant. It is also pointed out that Mr Branch was never asked during the Hearing why he had not (if indeed he had not) blamed the horse in the first Hearing.
In summary, it is submitted that these factual matters should be corrected, or at least excluded, from any consideration on penalty.
3.6 A further submission was that it is also considered relevant that Cuedee Algranco, when subsequently driven by Mr Brent Mangos, again raced erratically.
3.7 Finally it is submitted that any penalty should be consistent with similar offences.
3.8 Mr Branch also made submissions in respect to a Careless Driving charge concerning Junior Driver Mr L. He gave what he submitted were some relevant excerpts from that decision.
3.9 In this case he then submitted:
(a) The result would have been the same had the interference not occurred.
(b) The horse clearly played some role in the interference as had it not initially run out to the extent that it did then the interference would not have occurred.
(c) The owners who have lost the difference between the second and third place stakes do not blame Mr Branch.
(d) Mr Branch is a junior driver and some regard should be had to the fact that junior drivers are not as experienced in handling difficult horses if only because those types of horses are not usually placed in junior driver races.
(e) Mr Branch does not work full-time in a stable and accordingly does not have exposure to a wide range of horses.
(f) It is correct that Mr Branch works part-time for the Auckland Trotting Club but he is also a part-time student at Auckland University, which requires a significant financial commitment.
(g) Mr Branch also trains two horses which again are more often than not likely to be a drain on financial resources than a benefit.
(h) What can confidently be said is that Mr Branch’s outgoings in many months exceed his income and he can only remain involved in the industry with the support of his parents.
(i) In setting fines, making those fines “hurt” a junior driver does not really reduce the chances of reoffending because these are not deliberate acts. However, fining young people with relatively low levels of income can undermine the resolve of those people to stay in an industry which, quite frankly, operates on very low profit margins.
3.10 Mr Branch then submitted that in all the circumstances a penalty in the sum of $200.00 is appropriate.
3.11 He then dealt with the submission from the Informant seeking that Mr Branch meet the costs payable to Magness Video Ltd.
3.12 He has submitted that this is not appropriate as the only reason this became a non-race day Hearing is because the Information was not served on Mr Branch until late in the evening and at such a time that the Hearing could not be held before the end of the race night.
3.13 He submitted that accordingly Mr Branch is not the reason why this matter was not heard on race night. He therefore should not be liable for the Magness Video Ltd costs. The extent (if any) to which there was any cost caused by looking at the additional film had not been identified.
3.14 For the same reasons, it is submitted it would be inappropriate for there to be a costs award in favour of the JCA.
4. Reasons for Penalty:
4.1 The Committee has considered the submissions of both of the parties and has also taken into account the findings that it made in its decision.
4.2 In his submissions, Mr Branch has suggested that the Committee made one or two errors with findings of fact. With respect to Mr Branch, we did not.
4.3 Suffice it to say that we relied on the oral and visual evidence presented to us. That evidence included statements from Mr Branch that although his horse was running out in the straight he was driving it out to the finish and only straightened it when he had to. Further to that the video evidence clearly shows Mr Branch using his whip in his right hand when the horse was running out to the left.
4.4 Mr Branch (Snr) referred to paragraph 3.13 of the decision. He then states that the evidence from Mr Branch (Jnr) was that he had taken corrective measures at the time Mr Dickie called out but the horse did not respond sufficiently to avoid the interference. We did not accept that at the Hearing and as far as we were concerned, Mr Branch took corrective action far too late.
4.5 Mr Branch (Snr) then referred to paragraph 3.6 in our decision. This Committee has dealt with many Protest Hearings over the years and we accept that the cause of any interference is not a necessary element in a Protest Hearing. It is rather whether interference occurred or not and the affect of that interference.
It is our experience however that in most cases if the Driver believes that it was his or her horse at fault then he or she would state that at the Protest Hearing. Mr Branch did not do so.
4.6 Mr Branch (Snr) then refers to the racing habits of Cuedee Algranco and in particular that at the Hearing Mr Branch (Jnr) submitted that the horse ran in on the bends and shifted out on the straights. We have dealt with that in our decision by pointing out that firstly Mr Branch (Jnr) had previously driven this horse, secondly that he was aware of the horse’s tendencies particularly when it was racing down the back straight and thirdly that he was forewarned as to what it might do in the home straight. We were told at the Hearing that he was pressing his horse in the home straight to achieve the best possible position and in our view he did not take enough notice of the horse’s racing tendencies even though, as we have said above, he was forewarned of this.
There was also reference to the fact that Cuedee Algranco raced erratically when subsequently being driven by Mr Mangos. The horse did run out on that occasion in the home straight but Mr Mangos immediately took corrective action and the horse responded and probably ran out less than half the distance than it did when driven by Mr Branch.
4.7 We were referred to the charge involving Mr L and asked to be consistent as far as penalty is concerned. We do not believe that that decision is relevant because it did not involve a relegation.
4.8 In his further submission Mr Branch said “the result would have been the same had the interference not occurred.” That is mere conjecture and based on the way in which Mr Dickie’s horse finished the race after the interference we would not accept Mr Branch’s submission as being correct.
4.9 Mr Branch in his further submission stated “the horse clearly played some role in the interference as had it not initially run out to the extent that it did then interference would not have occurred.” We do not accept that and should point out to Mr Branch (Jnr) that as the Driver he is the one responsible for ensuring that his horse runs correctly and that he does not cause interference. We understand that in some races horses will suddenly duck out and catch a Driver by surprise but there is no element of surprise in this situation and the outward movement was over a distance of more than 100 metres in the straight and Mr Branch had plenty of time to take corrective action.
4.10 Mr Branch (Snr) submits that a fine in the sum of $200.00 is appropriate and we have Mr Muirhead’s submission that a fine of $300.00 is appropriate. We are going to set the fine in between both of those figures. Whilst we accept that Mr Branch (Jnr) is entitled to defend a charge against him we do not accept that there was a great deal of merit in his defence. This was a charge of Careless Driving and clearly he was careless.
4.11 We also refer to Mr Branch (Snr’s) submissions as to the reason why this charge became a non race day Hearing and as a result a charge was incurred with Magness Video Ltd in the amount of $90.00 plus GST. Mr Branch (Snr) submits that the reason for this matter becoming a non race day Hearing was because the Information was not served on Mr Branch (Jnr) until late in the evening. We are concerned about that submission because the evidence given to us at the Hearing was that Mr Branch (Jnr) attended an enquiry with the Race Night Stewards with several different Senior Horsemen. We understood that to be at least five different horsemen and we have to wonder why that occurred. A Senior Horseman should have been able to look at the films and advise Mr Branch as to his position and it was not necessary for several different Senior Horsemen to be assisting Mr Branch. These, in our view, were unnecessary delays caused by Mr Branch. The Stipendiary Stewards should not have allowed Mr Branch the opportunity to attend the enquiry with the number of Senior Horsemen that he did and on the number of occasions that he did. This was most accommodating but unnecessary. This naturally caused delays and the Stipendary Stewards had to complete their enquiries first before arranging for an Information to be served on Mr Branch.
Mr Branch has, in our view, to accept his share of the responsibility for the delays which then resulted in this charge being the subject of a non race day Hearing. It is also pertinent to note that the video films presented at the Hearing included the earlier race from the 9th of December 2011 at the request of Mr Branch. This was not required by the Informant. We think that it is entirely reasonable that Mr Branch should be responsible for the costs from Magness Video Ltd.
4.12 We have previously stated that we see little merit in Mr Branch’s defence. He drove carelessly and caused a relegation and on the balance of probabilities it was very clear to us that he drove carelessly.
4.13 We do take into account his circumstances, as presented to us, and the fact that he is a Junior Driver but we also note that he has a prior charge of Careless Driving on the 13th of January 2012.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J M Muirhead - Counsel for HRNZ
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent: Mr M D Branch - Counsel for Mr Branch
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: