Appeal J Parkes v RIU – Decision dated 8 August 2014

hearingid: 2481bc9581da24f746eca1233c26eee3

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 05/08/2014

hearing_title: Appeal J Parkes v RIU - Decision dated 8 August 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing

BETWEEN JOHNATHAN PARKES, CLASS 1 LICENSED JOCKEY

APPELLANT

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

RESPONDENT

Appeals Tribunal: Murray McKechnie, Chairman & Noel McCutcheon

Parties : Mr Johnathan Parkes and his agent Mr Bevan Sweeney

Mr Neil Goodwin Stipendiary Steward representing the RIU

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL DATED THIS 8 DAY OF AUGUST 2014

1. NATURE OF APPEAL

1.1 On 17 July 2014 at Hawkes Bay Racing Mr Parkes was charged under Rule 638(1)(b) which alleged reckless riding. It was said that in Race 6 he angled his mount ABSOLUTELY SACRED outwards passing the 300 metre mark causing severe interference to the horse DARBY SHAW resulting in the rider of that horse Mr Dee being dislodged.

1.2. Mr Parkes pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless riding. In accordance with the established practice which is to be followed when serious charges are preferred against jockeys the Raceday Judicial Committee offered Mr Parkes the opportunity of an adjournment in order to prepare for the penalty hearing. Mr Parkes acknowledged that offer from the Raceday Judicial Committee but chose to proceed on raceday. Today Mr Parkes has explained to the Tribunal his reasons for that decision. These are readily understandable. Mr Parkes clearly recognised that a significant period of suspension was going to be imposed and he took the view that the sooner the period of suspension was in place necessarily the sooner it would expire. He was conscious that the Spring Carnival at Hawkes Bay commences on the 30 August and that any delay and the imposition of penalty might impact upon his ability to ride at Hawkes Bay from 30 August onwards.

2. DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

2.1 The Raceday Judicial Committee issued a careful and detailed decision. The Stipendiary Stewards on the day Mr Goodwin and Mr Oatham proposed a period of suspension of five (5) weeks. This was based upon a reference to previous penalties and these are listed in the decision of the Raceday Judicial Committee being five (5) in number.

2.2 Since the lodging of the appeal both Mr Goodwin and Mr Sweeney, who is Mr Parkes agent have undertaken research in relation to charges of reckless riding. So too have the members of the Tribunal and of course Mr McCutcheon with his vast experiences as a Stipendiary Steward can recall cases in earlier times. Necessarily each case is fact dependent and there can be a wide range of circumstances which lead to the preferring of a charge of reckless riding. The research that has been undertaken by Mr Goodwin and Mr Sweeney and by the members of the Tribunal has necessarily put the Tribunal in a position where they are better informed than the Raceday Judicial Committee. That is not intended as any criticism of the Committee on the day – it is clear that the Committee considered the cases which had been put before it and examined the circumstances of the race with care. It should be said for completeness that the horse ABSOLUTELY SACRED went on to win the race in question but was subsequently disqualified. Further that Mr Dee was injured as a result of being dislodged from the horse DARBY SHAW. Fortunately that injury was not serious and Mr Dee was able to resume riding within a few days.

2.3 On raceday Mr Goodwin, for the RIU, submitted that an appropriate period of suspension was five (5) weeks. The Raceday Judicial Committee determined that six (6) weeks was the appropriate period of suspension. It is unusual but not unique for a Judicial Committee to adopt a penalty more severe than is proposed by the RIU.

2.4 In support of Mr Parkes position Mr Sweeney submitted that the penalty of six (6) weeks was not consistent with penalties imposed on earlier occasions. He pointed to Mr Parkes good record. He drew attention to the modest value of the race compared with other cases of reckless ridging where races of significant value or prestige have been involved.

2.5 In the Tribunal’s view the primary inquiry of a Raceday Judicial Committee concerned with a charge of reckless riding is to establish the degree of culpability of the jockey – to put it in more colloquial language “how serious was the reckless riding involved”? In this case we have studied the film carefully as did the Raceday Judicial Committee. Mr Parkes made a deliberate decision to move his horse out from its position and in doing so caused significant interference to the horse DARBY SHAW. Further it is our judgment that Mr Parkes was aware of the presence of DARBY SHAW and must therefore have known that the course that he was embarking upon involved a significant element of risk.

2.6 Mr Parkes immediately acknowledged his responsibility and expressed regret for what had occurred.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 In the judgment of the Tribunal the reckless riding was serious in character. The decision taken by Mr Parkes appears to have been deliberate.

3.2 In considering the appropriate term of suspension the Raceday Judicial Committee acknowledged that Mr Parkes had immediately pleaded guilty. The Committee also spoke of Mr Parkes clear record under the Reckless Riding Rule: in other words that he had not previously ever been charged with reckless riding. In the opinion of this Tribunal it is also appropriate to look at Mr Parkes overall record. In the last twelve (12) months he has had 657 mounts and faced only two (2) charges of careless riding. That is a very good record. It is relevant to look at that record when considering a charge of reckless riding. A jockey with a bad record for careless riding who then faces a charge of reckless riding could not expect the same degree of consideration from a Raceday Judicial Committee as might have been appropriate with respect to Mr Parkes in this case.

3.3 As set out above the Judicial Committee recorded in its decision Mr Parkes immediate plea of guilty. It is not however clear from the decision how that plea was factored into the determination of the six (6) week period of suspension. There is no statement of what discount or consideration Mr Parkes was given for his immediate guilty plea. It may be of course that in the circumstances as demonstrated by the film that a plea of guilty was inevitable. It is however the experience of this Tribunal that not all jockeys in the same situation would necessarily have acknowledged their responsibility as promptly as did Mr Parkes.

3.4 In our judgment a period of six (6) weeks suspension would be appropriate in the case of the most serious reckless riding and perhaps in circumstances where the jockey’s record was of concern. This was serious reckless riding but not in our judgment at the highest level. Further and with respect to the Raceday Judicial Committee we do not consider that sufficient recognition was given to Mr Parkes good record, first in respect of the fact that there was no previous charge of reckless riding, and secondly and importantly with reference to the careless riding spoken of above. Thirdly, as noted in the earlier paragraph, there is no express recognition in the decision under appeal of what, if any, credit had been given for the plea of guilty.

3.5 Appeals Tribunals are reluctant to make minor adjustments to penalties imposed by experienced Raceday Committees. This is frequently the case when jockeys come before the Appeals Tribunal seeking a one (1) or two (2) day adjustment to a period of suspension imposed for careless riding. Here however the period of suspension was significant and the Tribunal is mindful that the period sought by the prosecuting authority was five (5) weeks. Mr Sweeney for his part has contended that five (5) weeks was the appropriate period of suspension that ought to have been imposed. In advancing that submission Mr Sweeney pointed to the commencement of the Hawkes Bay Carnival on 30 August and mounts which might be available to Mr Parkes on that and successive days in the carnival. He made the point that if Mr Parkes was not able to ride on Saturday 30 August he might then possibly lose the opportunity to ride horses that raced on that day and then went on to race later in the carnival.

3.6 For the reasons that we have set out the Tribunal believes that the appropriate suspension was five (5) weeks and that this is the suspension which ought to have been imposed by the Raceday Judicial Committee. It follows that the period of six (6) weeks suspension is quashed and a period of five (5) weeks is imposed and that will expire at the conclusion of racing on Saturday 23 August.

3.7 Both parties were invited to address the Tribunal on the question of costs. Neither Mr Goodwin nor Mr Sweeney made any submissions seeking costs. That is realistic in the circumstances. There will be no costs as between the parties and no costs ordered to be paid to the JCA.

3.8 We thank Mr Sweeney and Mr Goodwin for their assistance and Mr Parkes for his courtesy.

Murray McKechnie – Chairman

Signed pursuant to Rule 920(5)

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

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: