Appeal RIU v C Johnson 19 January 2017 – Written Decision dated 24 January 2017 – Chair, Mr A Harper
ID: JCA12830
Decision:
In the Matter of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing
And in the Matter of an Appeal by Racing Integrity Unit and Chris Johnson
Before an Appeals Tribunal of the Judicial Control Authority for Racing under the Racing Act 2003.
Appeals Tribunal: Mr Alan Harper Chair and Mr Noel McCutcheon
Present: Mr John Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr Chris Johnson Licenced Jockey
Ms Belinda Middlewood assisting Mr Johnson
Mr John Tannahill counsel for Mr Johnson
Heard at Wellington on 19 January 2017
Decision given on 19 January 2017
Written decision issued 24 January 2017
1. Introduction
1.1 On 16 December 2016 the Ashburton Racing Club conducted a race meeting at the Ashburton Racecourse. Race 1 on the card was the Insurance 4 U maiden.
1.2 Following this race the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) charged licenced jockey Chris Johnson with improper riding under the provisions of rule 638 (1)(c) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing. (‘the Rules”).
1.3 Given the nature of that charge the hearing was adjourned to Monday 26 December 2016.
1.4 The Judicial Committee found the charge of improper riding to be not proven and using powers contained in the Rules amended the charge to one of careless riding under the provisions of rule 638 (1)(d).
1.5 Mr Johnson admitted that charge and the Judicial Committee imposed a suspension on Mr Johnson which comprised 6 race days.
1.6 The RIU appeal both the decision to not find the improper riding charge proven and also the period of suspension.
2. Preliminary Matter
2.1 Prior to the hearing the appeal Mr Tannahill raised a preliminary matter. He directed the Tribunal to page 16 of the transcript of evidence where Mr Hall as Chair of the Judicial Committee stated:
“A charge of improper riding is a serious charge and we need to be satisfied to a standard that takes into account the seriousness of the charge and will give a full written decision in respect to the charge of improper riding. But we do not find the charge of improper riding proved. And what we propose to do is to amend the charge to one of careless riding unless there is objections to that from Mr Davidson”.
To which Mr Davidson who was the Stipendiary Steward bringing the charge responded:
“No sir not from me”.
2.2 Mr Tannahill submitted that the response from Mr Davidson constituted consent to the charge being amended. He further submitted RIU could not appeal against a finding which had been consented to. Therefore he was of the view no appeal in respect to that finding was valid but the only appeal which could be preceded with was one against penalty.
2.3 We did not accept that submission and ruled there had been no consent to the amendment and therefore the appeal against the finding of the Judicial Committee as to the improper riding charge could proceed.
2.4 We noted the contents of transcript and considered the Chair had put Mr Davidson in a rather difficult position when the Chair indicated the Judicial Committee had already made its finding.
2.5 Our view is reinforced by the comments of Mr Davidson on page 17 where he stated:
“Obviously the steward’s opinion has not changed, we believe that this was a very serious matter, that’s why the original charge of improper was laid, you have obviously decided that you don’t believe it’s improper”.
3. The Appeal
3.1 The procedure for appeals is set out in Rules 1001-1015 of the rules.
In particular Rule 1005 (3) reads:
“All appeals shall except when and to the extent that the Appeals Tribunal otherwise directs be by way of rehearing based on the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted by the persons or body whose decision is appealed against”.
3.2 We further note with approval and agree with the comments made by the Judicial Committee on page 16 of the transcript where the Chair made reference that we do need to be satisfied to a standard that takes into account the seriousness of the charge when dealing with this matter.
3.3 We are also very mindful that an Appeal Tribunal does need to form its own decision on the matters placed before it but should not lightly interfere with the decision which is being appealed against.
4. The Position of the RIU
4.1 At the hearing before the Judicial Committee the only evidence which was adduced by the RIU was the use of the four films of the particular incident.
4.2 The films showed that coming to the home straight Windermere Lass ridden by Courtney Barnes was leading. Behind that horse was Radiant ridden by Rudy Firdhaus and on the outside of the leader was Pippi Rea ridden by Mr Johnson.
4.3 Mr Oatham then went on to show us that shortly after straightening up there was a gap available for Radiant to come off the fence and move between Windermere Lass and Pippi Rea.
4.4 It remains the position of the RIU that upon Radiant coming off the fence Mr Johnson directed Pippi Rea towards Radiant in an endeavour to force Radiant back onto the fence immediately behind Windermere Lass and therefore into a pocket.
4.5 Mr Oatham further went on to show us that because Radiant was travelling particularly well it was able to resist the movement of Pippi Rea and force that runner back onto its original line allowing Radiant to take the gap.
4.6 It was the submission of the RIU this was a deliberate action by Mr Johnson and this put Radiant into a dangerous and compromised position. The ride was not of an acceptable standard.
4.7 Mr Oatham also believed the actions of Mr Johnson were deliberate and not careless. There was some discussion as to what constitutes improper.
4.8 The ride did amount to improper riding in the view of the RIU and was therefore totally unacceptable. This is particularly given there was no attempt by Mr Johnson to straighten his mount.
4.9 He reinforced the informant’s case at the original hearing which was referred to in paragraphs 4-8 in the decision of the Judicial Committee.
5. The Position of Mr Johnson
5.1 Mr Tannahill reminded us the onus is on the Appellant to provide persuasion that the Judicial Committee was in error or misunderstood the facts or law relating to the circumstances.
5.2 He noted the Judicial Committee comprised experienced members who heard extensive evidence and submissions.
5.3 He further stated Mr Davidson had presented the case for RIU and directed us to paragraph 26 of the decision where the Judicial Committee found no evidence that Mr Johnson’s actions were deliberate.
5.4 He also noted the comment in paragraph 27 that the videos suggested that the reins were loose and Mr Johnson was using his whip with his left hand.
5.5 He then noted the actual decision referred to in paragraph 28 and submitted RIU had not discharged its onus as it had not presented to us any real grounds for appeal.
5.6 At her request we allowed Ms Middlewood to also make a submission. She is Mr Johnson’s partner and takes his rides in the South Island. She is also a licensed trainer.
5.7 Her submission was the ride was nothing more than a competitive ride where Mr Johnson had shown aggression and ruthless tactics which were perfectly in accordance with the Rules. This submission was however somewhat contrary to Mr Johnson admitting a charge of careless riding.
6. Discussion
6.1 The hearing of this appeal is by a rehearing on the original evidence. However there was very little evidence presented to the Judicial Committee other than the films. The entire case of the RIU revolved around the presentation of the films.
6.2 There had been some evidence given by Mr Johnson before the Judicial Committee. At that hearing Mr Johnson was assisted by Mr Michael Pitman who is a licenced trainer. Mr Pitman gave his interpretation of the incident and whilst voicing his opinion his submissions were largely interpreting the films.
6.3 This Tribunal further carefully reviewed the films. We viewed them on a frame by frame basis and the finding of fact which we came to included:
- For a period of time after entering the home straight Pippi Rea was running in a straight line.
- There was a sufficient gap between Windermere Lass and Pippi Rea for Radiant to take.
- Immediately upon Radiant moving out from behind Windermere Lass into a gap which it was perfectly entitled to take Mr Johnson's left elbow was raised.
- We were unable to see any suggestion on the video of a loose rein and in fact believe that not to be the case.
- Simultaneously with Mr Johnson's left elbow being raised the head of Pippi Rea moved to the near side indicating the near side rein has been pulled by Mr Johnson.
- Mr Johnson’s right elbow was not raised to the same extent.
- That position continued until such time as Radiant had resisted the inward movement by Pippi Rea and pushed her back to a position which allowed Radiant to take the gap.
6.4 We believe Mr Johnson's actions were deliberate and even once contact had been made by both horse and rider there was no attempt made to straighten his mount to relieve the pressure which had been unduly brought on Radiant.
6.5 We considered what constitutes improper and we were guided towards the words which had been used by various parties including:
“Lacking propriety”.
“Unsuitable for a certain use or occasion”.
“Inappropriate”.
“Irregular or abnormal”.
6.6 We were particularly drawn to our conclusion that the actions of Mr Johnson were deliberate. They were not momentary or caused through a lack of attention or contribution by third parties including the horse who he was riding. We found his actions were deliberate and took place over a number of strides with what we believe to be an intention to force Radiant back onto the rail.
6.7 Accordingly we cannot agree with the finding of the Judicial Committee that they should amend the charge to careless riding because we do not believe the actions of Mr Johnson were in any way careless.
6.8 In fact we find his actions were deliberate and concerted which comes within the definition of improper.
6.9 We found no difficulty in coming to this conclusion even having regard to the higher standard of proof which is required for a charge of this nature.
6.10 We accordingly allow the appeal. The charge of improper riding under rule 638(1) (c) is proved.
7. Penalty
7.1 Mr Oatham addressed us on penalty. There had been a starting point for improper riding in a previous penalty guide but this is no longer the case for the current guide.
7.2 He submitted a starting point should be the same for incompetent riding at six weeks.
7.3 The position of the RIU is that for serious breaches suspensions should be expressed as weeks rather days and there needed to be a deterrent and strong message sent to all riders that riding in this manner and to this standard is unacceptable and will be met with stern measures.
7.4 He made reference to RIU V TN Harris a decision dated 10 July 2014 where the Judicial Committee imposed a suspension of three weeks together with a fine of $500.00 on Mr Harris for an improper riding charge. Note was made however Mr Harris was a highweight rider and therefore the penalty would reflect a lesser number of opportunities.
7.5 He also made reference to other recent improper riding instances but these were relevant only for their own particular factual circumstances.
7.6 Mr Tannahill noted Mr Johnson’s good record and also reinforced the comments by the Judicial Committee that a six day suspension was toward the high end of the scale for careless riding.
7.7 His submission was to the effect the six days suspension handed down by the Judicial Committee was adequate and noted Mr Johnson had already missed riding in Group events over recent days.
7.8 He also noted that if we were minded to impose additional days of suspension then it should be limited to maybe one or two days. He further asked us to take into account the fact that had Mr Johnson not been suspended he would have been riding at Wellington on 21 January 2017 and therefore also would have ridden on Monday 23 January 2017.
7.9 We again asked Ms Middlewood to address us in relation to penalty.
7.10 She asked us to take into account the time of the year and the original suspension had been imposed at a time Mr Johnson was second on the premiership. She added he was chasing the premiership this year and given his seniority of a rider this was to be commended.
7.11 She indicated as someone who took Mr Johnson's rides in the South Island he had already missed out on 10 winning rides over the busy New Year period.
8. Penalty Discussion
8.1 In the absence of a penalty guide it was necessary for us to establish a starting point.
8.2 Under the existing guide the starting point for incompetent riding was six weeks and therefore it was our view the guide for improper riding could not be any greater than six weeks.
8.3 However we accept improper riding is a serious offence in its own right. We considered the penalty imposed on Mr Harris which has been referred to which was three weeks plus a $500.00 fine. But for the limited riding opportunities the penalty may have been greater.
8.4 Therefore we determined an appropriate starting point to be six weeks.
8.5 Reference was made to Mr Johnson's record and we agree he has a very good record over the last 12 months particularly having regard to the number of rides over various parts of the country.
8.6 We also took into account this is the busiest time of the year for Mr Johnson having regard to the number and status of meetings held in the South Island and also the Central Districts.
We therefore determine an appropriate period of suspension to be one month.
8.7 However Mr Johnson’s existing suspension imposed by the Judicial Committee was from the conclusion of racing on 1 January 2017 until the conclusion of racing on 14 January 2017. Mr Johnson has engagements declared for the Gore meeting on 21 January 2017 and therefore we defer the suspension to allow him to ride on that day.
8.8 Given the one month suspension which we envisaged would be from 2 January 2017 until 1 February 2017 we believe this needs to be extended by one day to encompass a further meeting given Mr Johnson has the opportunity to ride on 21 January 2017.
8.9 Accordingly we suspend Mr Johnson's licence to ride from the conclusion of racing on 21 January 2017 up to and including the conclusion of racing on 2 February 2017. For the purposes of clarity this entails:
- Otago Racing Club on 26 January 2017.
- Wellington Racing Club or Canterbury Jockey Club on 28 January 2017.
- Hastings Jockey Club on 1 February 2017.
- Gore Racing Club on 2 February 2017.
8.10 We did not have regard to Woodville Jockey Club on 23 January 2017 as Mr Johnson indicated he had not intended to ride there and there has been no riding engagements made for that date.
9. Costs
9.1 There were no cost applications.
9.2 It is usual for an unsuccessful party to be awarded costs in favour of the successful party. However the appeal by the RIU was against a decision which the Judicial Committee of the day made itself. We do not therefore believe it is appropriate for there to be any costs order made against Mr Johnson.
9.3 There will therefore be no order as to costs.
Dated: 24 January 2017
Alan Harper Chair
Signed pursuant to rule 1007(5)
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 24/01/2017
Publish Date: 24/01/2017
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: 5dc526576d29197134c14a0716f04b37
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 24/01/2017
hearing_title: Appeal RIU v C Johnson 19 January 2017 - Written Decision dated 24 January 2017 - Chair, Mr A Harper
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
In the Matter of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing
And in the Matter of an Appeal by Racing Integrity Unit and Chris Johnson
Before an Appeals Tribunal of the Judicial Control Authority for Racing under the Racing Act 2003.
Appeals Tribunal: Mr Alan Harper Chair and Mr Noel McCutcheon
Present: Mr John Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr Chris Johnson Licenced Jockey
Ms Belinda Middlewood assisting Mr Johnson
Mr John Tannahill counsel for Mr Johnson
Heard at Wellington on 19 January 2017
Decision given on 19 January 2017
Written decision issued 24 January 2017
1. Introduction
1.1 On 16 December 2016 the Ashburton Racing Club conducted a race meeting at the Ashburton Racecourse. Race 1 on the card was the Insurance 4 U maiden.
1.2 Following this race the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) charged licenced jockey Chris Johnson with improper riding under the provisions of rule 638 (1)(c) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing. (‘the Rules”).
1.3 Given the nature of that charge the hearing was adjourned to Monday 26 December 2016.
1.4 The Judicial Committee found the charge of improper riding to be not proven and using powers contained in the Rules amended the charge to one of careless riding under the provisions of rule 638 (1)(d).
1.5 Mr Johnson admitted that charge and the Judicial Committee imposed a suspension on Mr Johnson which comprised 6 race days.
1.6 The RIU appeal both the decision to not find the improper riding charge proven and also the period of suspension.
2. Preliminary Matter
2.1 Prior to the hearing the appeal Mr Tannahill raised a preliminary matter. He directed the Tribunal to page 16 of the transcript of evidence where Mr Hall as Chair of the Judicial Committee stated:
“A charge of improper riding is a serious charge and we need to be satisfied to a standard that takes into account the seriousness of the charge and will give a full written decision in respect to the charge of improper riding. But we do not find the charge of improper riding proved. And what we propose to do is to amend the charge to one of careless riding unless there is objections to that from Mr Davidson”.
To which Mr Davidson who was the Stipendiary Steward bringing the charge responded:
“No sir not from me”.
2.2 Mr Tannahill submitted that the response from Mr Davidson constituted consent to the charge being amended. He further submitted RIU could not appeal against a finding which had been consented to. Therefore he was of the view no appeal in respect to that finding was valid but the only appeal which could be preceded with was one against penalty.
2.3 We did not accept that submission and ruled there had been no consent to the amendment and therefore the appeal against the finding of the Judicial Committee as to the improper riding charge could proceed.
2.4 We noted the contents of transcript and considered the Chair had put Mr Davidson in a rather difficult position when the Chair indicated the Judicial Committee had already made its finding.
2.5 Our view is reinforced by the comments of Mr Davidson on page 17 where he stated:
“Obviously the steward’s opinion has not changed, we believe that this was a very serious matter, that’s why the original charge of improper was laid, you have obviously decided that you don’t believe it’s improper”.
3. The Appeal
3.1 The procedure for appeals is set out in Rules 1001-1015 of the rules.
In particular Rule 1005 (3) reads:
“All appeals shall except when and to the extent that the Appeals Tribunal otherwise directs be by way of rehearing based on the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted by the persons or body whose decision is appealed against”.
3.2 We further note with approval and agree with the comments made by the Judicial Committee on page 16 of the transcript where the Chair made reference that we do need to be satisfied to a standard that takes into account the seriousness of the charge when dealing with this matter.
3.3 We are also very mindful that an Appeal Tribunal does need to form its own decision on the matters placed before it but should not lightly interfere with the decision which is being appealed against.
4. The Position of the RIU
4.1 At the hearing before the Judicial Committee the only evidence which was adduced by the RIU was the use of the four films of the particular incident.
4.2 The films showed that coming to the home straight Windermere Lass ridden by Courtney Barnes was leading. Behind that horse was Radiant ridden by Rudy Firdhaus and on the outside of the leader was Pippi Rea ridden by Mr Johnson.
4.3 Mr Oatham then went on to show us that shortly after straightening up there was a gap available for Radiant to come off the fence and move between Windermere Lass and Pippi Rea.
4.4 It remains the position of the RIU that upon Radiant coming off the fence Mr Johnson directed Pippi Rea towards Radiant in an endeavour to force Radiant back onto the fence immediately behind Windermere Lass and therefore into a pocket.
4.5 Mr Oatham further went on to show us that because Radiant was travelling particularly well it was able to resist the movement of Pippi Rea and force that runner back onto its original line allowing Radiant to take the gap.
4.6 It was the submission of the RIU this was a deliberate action by Mr Johnson and this put Radiant into a dangerous and compromised position. The ride was not of an acceptable standard.
4.7 Mr Oatham also believed the actions of Mr Johnson were deliberate and not careless. There was some discussion as to what constitutes improper.
4.8 The ride did amount to improper riding in the view of the RIU and was therefore totally unacceptable. This is particularly given there was no attempt by Mr Johnson to straighten his mount.
4.9 He reinforced the informant’s case at the original hearing which was referred to in paragraphs 4-8 in the decision of the Judicial Committee.
5. The Position of Mr Johnson
5.1 Mr Tannahill reminded us the onus is on the Appellant to provide persuasion that the Judicial Committee was in error or misunderstood the facts or law relating to the circumstances.
5.2 He noted the Judicial Committee comprised experienced members who heard extensive evidence and submissions.
5.3 He further stated Mr Davidson had presented the case for RIU and directed us to paragraph 26 of the decision where the Judicial Committee found no evidence that Mr Johnson’s actions were deliberate.
5.4 He also noted the comment in paragraph 27 that the videos suggested that the reins were loose and Mr Johnson was using his whip with his left hand.
5.5 He then noted the actual decision referred to in paragraph 28 and submitted RIU had not discharged its onus as it had not presented to us any real grounds for appeal.
5.6 At her request we allowed Ms Middlewood to also make a submission. She is Mr Johnson’s partner and takes his rides in the South Island. She is also a licensed trainer.
5.7 Her submission was the ride was nothing more than a competitive ride where Mr Johnson had shown aggression and ruthless tactics which were perfectly in accordance with the Rules. This submission was however somewhat contrary to Mr Johnson admitting a charge of careless riding.
6. Discussion
6.1 The hearing of this appeal is by a rehearing on the original evidence. However there was very little evidence presented to the Judicial Committee other than the films. The entire case of the RIU revolved around the presentation of the films.
6.2 There had been some evidence given by Mr Johnson before the Judicial Committee. At that hearing Mr Johnson was assisted by Mr Michael Pitman who is a licenced trainer. Mr Pitman gave his interpretation of the incident and whilst voicing his opinion his submissions were largely interpreting the films.
6.3 This Tribunal further carefully reviewed the films. We viewed them on a frame by frame basis and the finding of fact which we came to included:
- For a period of time after entering the home straight Pippi Rea was running in a straight line.
- There was a sufficient gap between Windermere Lass and Pippi Rea for Radiant to take.
- Immediately upon Radiant moving out from behind Windermere Lass into a gap which it was perfectly entitled to take Mr Johnson's left elbow was raised.
- We were unable to see any suggestion on the video of a loose rein and in fact believe that not to be the case.
- Simultaneously with Mr Johnson's left elbow being raised the head of Pippi Rea moved to the near side indicating the near side rein has been pulled by Mr Johnson.
- Mr Johnson’s right elbow was not raised to the same extent.
- That position continued until such time as Radiant had resisted the inward movement by Pippi Rea and pushed her back to a position which allowed Radiant to take the gap.
6.4 We believe Mr Johnson's actions were deliberate and even once contact had been made by both horse and rider there was no attempt made to straighten his mount to relieve the pressure which had been unduly brought on Radiant.
6.5 We considered what constitutes improper and we were guided towards the words which had been used by various parties including:
“Lacking propriety”.
“Unsuitable for a certain use or occasion”.
“Inappropriate”.
“Irregular or abnormal”.
6.6 We were particularly drawn to our conclusion that the actions of Mr Johnson were deliberate. They were not momentary or caused through a lack of attention or contribution by third parties including the horse who he was riding. We found his actions were deliberate and took place over a number of strides with what we believe to be an intention to force Radiant back onto the rail.
6.7 Accordingly we cannot agree with the finding of the Judicial Committee that they should amend the charge to careless riding because we do not believe the actions of Mr Johnson were in any way careless.
6.8 In fact we find his actions were deliberate and concerted which comes within the definition of improper.
6.9 We found no difficulty in coming to this conclusion even having regard to the higher standard of proof which is required for a charge of this nature.
6.10 We accordingly allow the appeal. The charge of improper riding under rule 638(1) (c) is proved.
7. Penalty
7.1 Mr Oatham addressed us on penalty. There had been a starting point for improper riding in a previous penalty guide but this is no longer the case for the current guide.
7.2 He submitted a starting point should be the same for incompetent riding at six weeks.
7.3 The position of the RIU is that for serious breaches suspensions should be expressed as weeks rather days and there needed to be a deterrent and strong message sent to all riders that riding in this manner and to this standard is unacceptable and will be met with stern measures.
7.4 He made reference to RIU V TN Harris a decision dated 10 July 2014 where the Judicial Committee imposed a suspension of three weeks together with a fine of $500.00 on Mr Harris for an improper riding charge. Note was made however Mr Harris was a highweight rider and therefore the penalty would reflect a lesser number of opportunities.
7.5 He also made reference to other recent improper riding instances but these were relevant only for their own particular factual circumstances.
7.6 Mr Tannahill noted Mr Johnson’s good record and also reinforced the comments by the Judicial Committee that a six day suspension was toward the high end of the scale for careless riding.
7.7 His submission was to the effect the six days suspension handed down by the Judicial Committee was adequate and noted Mr Johnson had already missed riding in Group events over recent days.
7.8 He also noted that if we were minded to impose additional days of suspension then it should be limited to maybe one or two days. He further asked us to take into account the fact that had Mr Johnson not been suspended he would have been riding at Wellington on 21 January 2017 and therefore also would have ridden on Monday 23 January 2017.
7.9 We again asked Ms Middlewood to address us in relation to penalty.
7.10 She asked us to take into account the time of the year and the original suspension had been imposed at a time Mr Johnson was second on the premiership. She added he was chasing the premiership this year and given his seniority of a rider this was to be commended.
7.11 She indicated as someone who took Mr Johnson's rides in the South Island he had already missed out on 10 winning rides over the busy New Year period.
8. Penalty Discussion
8.1 In the absence of a penalty guide it was necessary for us to establish a starting point.
8.2 Under the existing guide the starting point for incompetent riding was six weeks and therefore it was our view the guide for improper riding could not be any greater than six weeks.
8.3 However we accept improper riding is a serious offence in its own right. We considered the penalty imposed on Mr Harris which has been referred to which was three weeks plus a $500.00 fine. But for the limited riding opportunities the penalty may have been greater.
8.4 Therefore we determined an appropriate starting point to be six weeks.
8.5 Reference was made to Mr Johnson's record and we agree he has a very good record over the last 12 months particularly having regard to the number of rides over various parts of the country.
8.6 We also took into account this is the busiest time of the year for Mr Johnson having regard to the number and status of meetings held in the South Island and also the Central Districts.
We therefore determine an appropriate period of suspension to be one month.
8.7 However Mr Johnson’s existing suspension imposed by the Judicial Committee was from the conclusion of racing on 1 January 2017 until the conclusion of racing on 14 January 2017. Mr Johnson has engagements declared for the Gore meeting on 21 January 2017 and therefore we defer the suspension to allow him to ride on that day.
8.8 Given the one month suspension which we envisaged would be from 2 January 2017 until 1 February 2017 we believe this needs to be extended by one day to encompass a further meeting given Mr Johnson has the opportunity to ride on 21 January 2017.
8.9 Accordingly we suspend Mr Johnson's licence to ride from the conclusion of racing on 21 January 2017 up to and including the conclusion of racing on 2 February 2017. For the purposes of clarity this entails:
- Otago Racing Club on 26 January 2017.
- Wellington Racing Club or Canterbury Jockey Club on 28 January 2017.
- Hastings Jockey Club on 1 February 2017.
- Gore Racing Club on 2 February 2017.
8.10 We did not have regard to Woodville Jockey Club on 23 January 2017 as Mr Johnson indicated he had not intended to ride there and there has been no riding engagements made for that date.
9. Costs
9.1 There were no cost applications.
9.2 It is usual for an unsuccessful party to be awarded costs in favour of the successful party. However the appeal by the RIU was against a decision which the Judicial Committee of the day made itself. We do not therefore believe it is appropriate for there to be any costs order made against Mr Johnson.
9.3 There will therefore be no order as to costs.
Dated: 24 January 2017
Alan Harper Chair
Signed pursuant to rule 1007(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: