Appeal AM Morgan v RIU – 14 April 2014 – Decision dated 24 April 2014

hearingid: 308b7737e352f03ee9c328851f433e80

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 20/04/2014

hearing_title: Appeal AM Morgan v RIU - 14 April 2014 - Decision dated 24 April 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 AMANDA MORGAN

APPELLANT
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

RESPONDENT

Appeals Tribunal: Murray McKechnie, Chairman and Professor Geoff Hall, Tribunal Member
Present: Miss Amanda Morgan, Apprentice Jockey, Mr Michael Pitman, Licenced Trainer, Mr Ross Neal, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr Nick Ydgren, Registrar

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL

DATED THIS 24 DAY OF APRIL 2014

1. Issue on appeal
1.1 This appeal was heard in Christchurch on Monday 14th April. It raises a narrow but significant issue in relation to the approach to be taken to the deferment of a suspension imposed upon a jockey on race day.

1.2 The position is governed by Rule 1106(2). This provision reads as follows:
Each suspension of a rider or rider’s licence which is imposed under these rules by the Judicial Committee during any day of a race meeting shall take effect as follows:
(a) if, at the time the suspension is imposed, the rider has no engagements to ride a horse in a race during that next seven day period after that race day, from the completion of that rider’s engagements on that race day; or
(b) if, at the time the suspension is imposed, the rider is engaged to ride a horse or horses in a race(s) during the next seven day period after that race day, then from the earlier of:

(i) the completion of such engagements within that seven day period; or
(ii) the completion of that seven day period.

1.3 When the appeal was filed Miss Morgan sought a stay of proceedings. After a telephone conference the Tribunal granted that stay until the hearing of the appeal.

2. Events on the 5th April 2014

2.1 This summary of events is taken very largely from the helpful submissions prepared by Mr Neal. These facts are not in dispute.

2.2 On Saturday 5th April 2014 Miss Morgan was engaged to ride seven horses at the Canterbury Jockey Club’s race meeting at Riccarton Racecourse. Following her riding of CARNIVA BOY in Race 3 the Stewards filed a complaint of careless riding against Miss Morgan alleging that she rode carelessly near the 1400 metres which resulted in two other runners being checked. Miss Morgan admitted the charge. In consequence the Judicial Committee imposed a suspension of Miss Morgan’s licence to ride in races from the close of racing that day (5th April) up to and including racing on Thursday 17th April 2014 (3 days).

2.3 In Race 4, Miss Morgan riding THE GOVERNATOR was observed by the Stewards to relax her ride over the concluding stages when in fourth position, ultimately ending up finishing in fifth position. These actions gave rise to the Stewards filing another charge against Miss Morgan, alleging that she failed to ride THE GOVERNATOR out to the line which, it was said, cost the horse a higher placing. Miss Morgan denied the charge. After hearing evidence this charge was found proved. The Judicial Committee heard penalty submissions and then imposed a further period of suspension of three days. The second suspension was to commence at the expiration of the suspension incurred in Race 3. The effective dates for this second suspension being the 18th to 24th April (inclusive).

3. Discussion

3.1 The essential complaint raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the Raceday Judicial Committee had declined to indicate the penalty which it was minded to impose – that is the period of suspension – before hearing an application for deferment of that suspension. Mr Pitman who spoke in support of the appeal contended that this approach was inconsistent with that taken by Judicial Committees in other parts of the country.

3.2 The Tribunal has carefully read the transcripts of both the hearings before the Raceday Judicial Committee on the 5th April 2014. These make it very clear that Mr Pitman repeatedly raised the issue of the deferment of any suspension.

3.3 It is apparent upon a reading of the transcript of the hearing in relation to Race 3 that Mr Pitman, after some debate with the Raceday Judicial Committee did accept that the suspension should start immediately. He is recorded as having said “we would be better off to take it straight away”. What is also clear however is that Mr Pitman did make plain that he may wish to revisit the matter of deferment following the hearing in relation to the charge that had arisen out of the running of Race 4.

3.4 It was explained to the Tribunal that when the Raceday Judicial Committee came to hear the two charges against Miss Morgan it was known that the second hearing would follow the first and thus it must have been in the contemplation of all those taking part that, in the event of a finding of guilty in relation to the charge from Race 4, successive periods of suspension would likely be imposed.

3.5 As earlier recorded the charge in respect of Race 4 was defended and the Committee found the charge proved. There was then discussion between the Committee and Mr Pitman concerning the appropriate period of suspension and/or deferment. The Committee ruled (page 6, paragraph 6) that it had already dealt with the issue of deferment in respect of Race 3 and then ruled that it would not consider that issue any further.

4. Issues for determination

4.1 There are two (2) issues for determination arising from the events that occurred on the 5th April. These are:
(a) Should a Judicial Committee indicate the period of suspension that it will impose before inviting submissions on whether or not there should be a deferment of the suspension under Rule 1106(2); and
(b) In the unusual event that there are successive suspensions of the same jockey on the same race day should a Judicial Committee when considering the suspension to be imposed on the second occasion reconsider the position taken in relation to deferment if a suspension has been imposed on the earlier charge.

4.2 Both Mr Neal and Mr Pitman acknowledged that the approach taken by Raceday Judicial Committees throughout the country is not consistent and both recognised that it is in the interests of all who participate in the industry that there be a uniform approach taken to the issues outlined above.

4.3 The Tribunal considers that jockeys who face a period of suspension can best address the question of any possible deferment if they are made aware of the period of suspension that is within the Committee’s contemplation. This may be expressed as an exact figure (e.g. 4 days) or alternatively as a range (e.g. 3 to 4 days). If the indication is one as to range, there may be circumstances (e.g. where the parties’ submissions as to penalty do not differ or are not far apart) where this can be given after the Committee has had the respondent’s record produced before it and has heard the parties’ submissions as to penalty, and before the Committee retires for consideration of penalty. But more commonly, it would be thought appropriate to give this indication after the Committee has taken time for consideration, and before fixing the actual dates of the term of the suspension.

4.4 With respect to the second issue the Tribunal takes the view that if there are successive suspensions of a jockey on the same race day the Judicial Committee may legitimately reconsider the position taken at the time of the first suspension if, in the circumstances that are made known, two (2) successive periods of suspension may lead to a legitimate application by the jockey for a period of deferment.
It is understandable that circumstances may have changed with respect to whether a jockey wishes to defer the first suspension. Rule 923 (which empowers a Committee to rehear any matter upon a written application) would appear to be worded sufficiently broadly to enable a Committee to revisit the issue of deferment should it be thought that this is in the interests of justice in the particular case. For example, a jockey’s decision to request deferment of the suspension imposed for the first breach, may, when a further suspension is imposed for the second breach, result in the two periods of suspension extending to a major carnival at which the jockey wants to ride. The immediate commencement of the first suspension may, in the particular circumstances, permit this and, this being the case, a Committee may believe it is appropriate to reconsider the issue of deferment.

4.5 The Tribunal believes that if the procedure outlined above is followed by all Raceday Judicial Committees then there will be no legitimate grounds to complain of inconsistency and all parties will know the process which is to be followed.

4.6 The outcome of the appeal has been to clarify the application of Rule 1106(2). The period(s) of suspension were not challenged. The stay of proceedings expired at the conclusion of the hearing on Monday of this week 14th April 2014. After some discussion it was agreed that the period of Miss Morgan’s suspension would run from the 14th April to the 30th April 2014. Miss Morgan will thus be able to ride at Riverton on Thursday 1st May 2014.

4.7 This appeal has enabled there to be clarification of how Raceday Judicial Committees should approach the application of Rule 1106(2). Both Mr Neal and the prominent trainer Mr Pitman, to whom Miss Morgan is indentured, acknowledged that such clarification was appropriate. In the circumstances just outlined it is not appropriate that there be any costs awarded in favour of or against either party.

4.8 The Tribunal thanks Mr Neal and Mr Pitman for their constructive contributions.

Dated this 24 day of April 2014

_________________________________
Murray McKechnie - Signed pursuant to Rule 920(5)
Chairman

 

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: