Non Raceday Inquiry HRNZ v D C J Morrison – Decision dated 14 May 2011
ID: JCA11465
Decision:
Mr Wallis produced written permission to file this Information from the Operations Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, as provided for by Rule 1103(4)(c). This matter was heard at Addington Raceway on 14 May 2011.
Following the running of Race 2, the Crafar Crouch Construction Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. W. Wallis against Mr D. C. J. Morrison, the driver of “Flashbang” (10), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(2) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to finish in the best possible place. The charge reads as follows:-
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(2) in that from the 300m until the finish line – you failed to improve “FLASHBANG’s” position inwards to the inside of “ROWLON THE DREAM” when it was both reasonable & permissible for you to do so.”
Rule 868(2) reads as follows.
”(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”
Mr Morrison had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted, and also that he did not wish to attend the hearing.
Submissions:
Mr Wallis had Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre show the video coverage of this race. “Flashbang” raced in a handy position during the race and on entering the home straight was positioned just behind the leaders, and shortly after it was trailing behind the eventual first two placed horses. Mr Morrison continued to keep his horse behind “Rowlon The Dream” to the winning post, after which he did move his horse to the inside of that horse. In the straight there was room for at least four horses on the inside of “Rowlon The Dream”. There was no indication that Mr Morrison was having any difficulty with his horse, and the betting public would have expected Mr Morrison to move his horse inwards to obtain a run.
The only comments that Mr Morrison did make in relation to this matter were written on the Information (under the heading “I wish the Judicial Committee to have regard to:”) where Mr Morrison stated as follows.
“As I went to improve my position between Tim Williams (winner) and Dexter Dunn (2nd) Tim Williams’ horse drifted out & took my line. He drifted out 2.5m a full mown strip as seen on the head on & denied me my line to the finish.”
Mr McIntyre gave evidence that the video coverage showed quite clearly that there was never enough room for a run between the first two place getters. We agree that there was never enough room for Mr Morrison to make a run between “Rowlon The Dream” and “Awesome Prospect”, and that this was the situation for about the last 200 metres of the race.
Mr Wallis made submissions that it was clear from the video coverage that Mr Morrison took no discernible actions to enable his horse to finish in the best possible position, and that it was both reasonable and permissible for him to move his horse to the inside to obtain a clear run.
As mentioned above Mr Morrison did not attend this hearing. He was spoken to by the Acting Executive Officer of the JCA prior to this hearing and he confirmed that –
As mentioned above Mr Morrison did not attend this hearing. He was spoken to by the Acting Executive Officer of the JCA prior to this hearing and he confirmed that –
1 – He would not be attending the hearing; and
2 – He would not be making any further written submissions; and
3 – He would not be asking any other person to make representations on his behalf at the hearing.
2 – He would not be making any further written submissions; and
3 – He would not be asking any other person to make representations on his behalf at the hearing.
Decision:
As Mr Morrison had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rules 1110 and 1111(1)(d).
Submissions on Penalty:
Mr Wallis made submissions and advised that Mr Morrison had no previous relevant convictions. He had 21 drives in the 2009 – 2010 season, and has had 13 drives so far this season. He submitted that the way Mr Morrison drove his horse in this race was “hugely detrimental” to harness racing, and in particular to the persons who invested on his horse in this race.
Mr Wallis produced two recent cases for our information.
In HRNZ v. A (2009) the driver failed to improve his position when the pace was eased. A was a busy driver compared with Mr Morrison, and he was suspended for a period of four weeks.
In HRNZ v. T (2011) the driver finished second after trailing the winner from about the 300 metre mark, and showed little vigour in the run home, being beaten by a neck. T had a similar number of drives to Mr Morrison, and he was suspended for a period of six months and was also fined the sum of $250.
It was also submitted that the penalty imposed in this case should reflect the seriousness of the breach, and also act as a deterrent to like minded persons. Mr Wallis made submissions that penalty should be a suspension of no less than six months.
Reasons:
In considering an appropriate penalty in this case we took into account that Mr Morrison had no previous relevant breaches of this Rule, and that he admitted this breach. We have looked at the Penalty Guide which recommends a starting point of a fine of $500 and/or a suspension for one month. We considered the previous decisions in A and T produced by Mr Wallis to be very helpful. In particular the T case is quite similar to the present circumstances.
We also refer to the decision of HRNZ v. H (2005), which also dealt with a breach of Rule 868(2), where it was stated that –
“The Rule requires both a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race. There may be circumstances in which a drivers manner of driving may amount merely to a permissible error of tactics, but where that error of tactics amounts to bad judgement that results in disadvantage to his horse, then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the rule.”
We agree that the above is a correct statement of the requirements of this Rule 868(2). In the H case (referred to above) the driver was quite busy, and he was suspended for a period of 3 months.
We were satisfied that the circumstances of Mr Morrison’s breach of this Rule were very serious, and at the higher end of the scale. We decided that Mr Morrison would be suspended for a period of six (6) months and fined the sum of $300.
Penalty:
On resuming the hearing we advised that full reasons for our decision (as set out above) would be provided later, and we gave the following decision on penalty.
Mr Morrison’s Open Horseman’s Licence is suspended from after the completion of racing on 15 May 2011, until after the completion of racing on 14 November 2011, this being a period of 6 months. In addition Mr Morrison is fined the sum of $300.
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 14/04/2011
Publish Date: 14/04/2011
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: 20d3c4c7ab355167121965d3250cba65
informantnumber: 69158
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry HRNZ v D C J Morrison - Decision dated 14 May 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Mr Wallis produced written permission to file this Information from the Operations Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, as provided for by Rule 1103(4)(c). This matter was heard at Addington Raceway on 14 May 2011.
Following the running of Race 2, the Crafar Crouch Construction Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S. W. Wallis against Mr D. C. J. Morrison, the driver of “Flashbang” (10), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 868(2) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to finish in the best possible place. The charge reads as follows:-
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 868(2) in that from the 300m until the finish line – you failed to improve “FLASHBANG’s” position inwards to the inside of “ROWLON THE DREAM” when it was both reasonable & permissible for you to do so.”
Rule 868(2) reads as follows.
”(2) Every horseman shall take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win the race or to obtain the best possible position and/or finishing place.”
Mr Morrison had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was admitted, and also that he did not wish to attend the hearing.
Submissions:
Mr Wallis had Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre show the video coverage of this race. “Flashbang” raced in a handy position during the race and on entering the home straight was positioned just behind the leaders, and shortly after it was trailing behind the eventual first two placed horses. Mr Morrison continued to keep his horse behind “Rowlon The Dream” to the winning post, after which he did move his horse to the inside of that horse. In the straight there was room for at least four horses on the inside of “Rowlon The Dream”. There was no indication that Mr Morrison was having any difficulty with his horse, and the betting public would have expected Mr Morrison to move his horse inwards to obtain a run.
The only comments that Mr Morrison did make in relation to this matter were written on the Information (under the heading “I wish the Judicial Committee to have regard to:”) where Mr Morrison stated as follows.
“As I went to improve my position between Tim Williams (winner) and Dexter Dunn (2nd) Tim Williams’ horse drifted out & took my line. He drifted out 2.5m a full mown strip as seen on the head on & denied me my line to the finish.”
Mr McIntyre gave evidence that the video coverage showed quite clearly that there was never enough room for a run between the first two place getters. We agree that there was never enough room for Mr Morrison to make a run between “Rowlon The Dream” and “Awesome Prospect”, and that this was the situation for about the last 200 metres of the race.
Mr Wallis made submissions that it was clear from the video coverage that Mr Morrison took no discernible actions to enable his horse to finish in the best possible position, and that it was both reasonable and permissible for him to move his horse to the inside to obtain a clear run.
As mentioned above Mr Morrison did not attend this hearing. He was spoken to by the Acting Executive Officer of the JCA prior to this hearing and he confirmed that –
As mentioned above Mr Morrison did not attend this hearing. He was spoken to by the Acting Executive Officer of the JCA prior to this hearing and he confirmed that –
1 – He would not be attending the hearing; and
2 – He would not be making any further written submissions; and
3 – He would not be asking any other person to make representations on his behalf at the hearing.
2 – He would not be making any further written submissions; and
3 – He would not be asking any other person to make representations on his behalf at the hearing.
Decision:
As Mr Morrison had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rules 1110 and 1111(1)(d).
Submissions on Penalty:
Mr Wallis made submissions and advised that Mr Morrison had no previous relevant convictions. He had 21 drives in the 2009 – 2010 season, and has had 13 drives so far this season. He submitted that the way Mr Morrison drove his horse in this race was “hugely detrimental” to harness racing, and in particular to the persons who invested on his horse in this race.
Mr Wallis produced two recent cases for our information.
In HRNZ v. A (2009) the driver failed to improve his position when the pace was eased. A was a busy driver compared with Mr Morrison, and he was suspended for a period of four weeks.
In HRNZ v. T (2011) the driver finished second after trailing the winner from about the 300 metre mark, and showed little vigour in the run home, being beaten by a neck. T had a similar number of drives to Mr Morrison, and he was suspended for a period of six months and was also fined the sum of $250.
It was also submitted that the penalty imposed in this case should reflect the seriousness of the breach, and also act as a deterrent to like minded persons. Mr Wallis made submissions that penalty should be a suspension of no less than six months.
Reasons:
In considering an appropriate penalty in this case we took into account that Mr Morrison had no previous relevant breaches of this Rule, and that he admitted this breach. We have looked at the Penalty Guide which recommends a starting point of a fine of $500 and/or a suspension for one month. We considered the previous decisions in A and T produced by Mr Wallis to be very helpful. In particular the T case is quite similar to the present circumstances.
We also refer to the decision of HRNZ v. H (2005), which also dealt with a breach of Rule 868(2), where it was stated that –
“The Rule requires both a demonstration of tactics which can, by objective standards, be said to be both reasonable and permissible. Those have to be tactics which can be seen by not only the Stipendiary Stewards, but also those present at the racetrack, and in particular the betting public, to be tactics which are designed to give the horse every chance to finish in the best possible position that it can. The informant does not have to prove any deliberate intent not to win the race. There may be circumstances in which a drivers manner of driving may amount merely to a permissible error of tactics, but where that error of tactics amounts to bad judgement that results in disadvantage to his horse, then such manner of driving falls within the terms of the rule.”
We agree that the above is a correct statement of the requirements of this Rule 868(2). In the H case (referred to above) the driver was quite busy, and he was suspended for a period of 3 months.
We were satisfied that the circumstances of Mr Morrison’s breach of this Rule were very serious, and at the higher end of the scale. We decided that Mr Morrison would be suspended for a period of six (6) months and fined the sum of $300.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
On resuming the hearing we advised that full reasons for our decision (as set out above) would be provided later, and we gave the following decision on penalty.
Mr Morrison’s Open Horseman’s Licence is suspended from after the completion of racing on 15 May 2011, until after the completion of racing on 14 November 2011, this being a period of 6 months. In addition Mr Morrison is fined the sum of $300.
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 868(2)
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr N McIntyre - Stipendiary Steward
Respondent: Mr D C J Morrison - Open Horseman
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: