Auckland TC 16 March 2012 – R 1
ID: JCA13481
Meet Title:
Auckland TC - 16 March 2012
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2012/03/16
Race Number:
R 1
Decision:
The Committee finds that Mrs Neal made an error of judgement in allowing her horse to move back down onto the running line when not clear of the horse on her inside. Therefore she failed to exercise the required standard of care in the circumstances.
The Committee finds the charge proved.
Penalty:
The Committee imposes a fine of $300.
Charge:
The information alleged that “horsewoman L Neal drove Zimple carelessly causing interference to Saffron Castleton with approximately 300 metres to run”.
Mrs Neal did not admit the breach of the rule.
Facts:
At the commencement of the hearing Mrs Neal acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge and she confirmed to the Judicial Committee (the “Committee”) that she did not admit the breach.
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the alleged incident by way of available video footage. He told the Committee that as the field approached the 300 metre mark Zimple (Mrs L Neal) was in the lead and Saffron Castleton (Mr Z Butcher) was directly behind in the trail. Zimple ran out approximately one cart width and Saffron Castleton moved into the gap on the running line. At the same time, Mrs Neal allowed Zimple to shift back onto the running line when not sufficiently clear. Saffron Castleton reacted by breaking into a gallop for several strides and lost considerable ground.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Muirhead said that Mrs Neal should have stayed out because she was aware that there was another horse on her inside, evidenced by video footage showing that she looked around.
Under cross examination Mrs Neal asked Mr Muirhead whether or not there was sufficient room for Mr Butcher to have moved his horse up on the inside of her. Mr Muirhead responded that although there may be some merit in this proposition, Mrs Neal should have held her position and not moved back onto the running line.
Mr Z Butcher was called to give evidence by the Informant. He told the Committee that he was trailing Mrs Neal and she ran off and then came back down too quickly, adding that she could have avoided the incident by waiting 10 or 20 metres longer. He said that in doing so Mrs Neal did not give his horse, Saffron Castleton, sufficient room. Mr Butcher did not know whether the two horses made contact, but as a result he said that Saffron Castleton broke and lost ground.
Under cross examination Mrs Neal asked Mr Butcher whether he thought there was enough room to manoeuvre his horse and cart through the gap. Mr Butcher said that there was sufficient room and that he called out to Mrs Neal when he was endeavouring to take the gap.
Mr Muirhead did not re-examine Mr Butcher.
Mrs Neal told the Committee that she was firmly of the view that because the horses involved were only two year olds, Mr Butcher should not have taken the gap on the inside of her.
In summing up Mr Muirhead said that the evidence is clear that Mrs Neal moved out and then back inwards to the running line and she caused Saffron Castleton to break. Mr Muirhead acknowledged as a factor, that the horses involved were two year old trotters.
In summing up Mrs Neal emphasised that after her horse moved outward, her subsequent inward movement was not deliberate.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the evidence. The Committee's independent assessment of the incident is that Zimple, driven by Mrs Neal did run out at the 300 metre mark. This allowed Saffron Castleton, driven by Mr Butcher to take up the gap and move inside of Zimple. The gap closed when Mrs Neal allowed Zimple to move back down on to the running line when not sufficiently clear.
The resultant interference caused Saffron Castleton to break. The committee accepts that the horses involved in this incident are two year old trotters with limited race experience and that this may have been a factor.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that the starting point for a charge of this nature where there has been a resultant relegation is a fine of $600 (or equivalent driving days). He submitted that because the level of carelessness was below mid-range a fine of $400 may be a more appropriate starting point. He said that Mrs Neal has one previous breach of this rule during the previous 12 months.
Mrs Neal submitted that she would prefer a fine as opposed to suspension. She asked the Committee to take into account the low stake of the race (i.e. $4000) and the fact that the horses involved were inexperienced two year old trotters.
Reasons for Penalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a charge of careless driving resulting in relegation is 10 drives or $500. In this case Mrs Neal’s drive, Zimple was relegated from first to third place. This is an aggravating factor.
The Committee has assessed the level of carelessness as being slightly below mid-range and that the horses involved in the incident are inexperienced two year olds. The Committee also accepts that this was a low status race with a stake of $4000. Overall Mrs Neal has a good driving record, albeit she has breached this particular rule once previously in the last 12 months. These are mitigating factors.
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: 3c1c16a4b08b1635dd752ce448a4a835
informantnumber: 2356
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 12/03/2012
hearing_title: Auckland TC 16 March 2012 - R 1
charge:
The information alleged that “horsewoman L Neal drove Zimple carelessly causing interference to Saffron Castleton with approximately 300 metres to run”.
Mrs Neal did not admit the breach of the rule.
facts:
At the commencement of the hearing Mrs Neal acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge and she confirmed to the Judicial Committee (the “Committee”) that she did not admit the breach.
Mr Muirhead demonstrated the alleged incident by way of available video footage. He told the Committee that as the field approached the 300 metre mark Zimple (Mrs L Neal) was in the lead and Saffron Castleton (Mr Z Butcher) was directly behind in the trail. Zimple ran out approximately one cart width and Saffron Castleton moved into the gap on the running line. At the same time, Mrs Neal allowed Zimple to shift back onto the running line when not sufficiently clear. Saffron Castleton reacted by breaking into a gallop for several strides and lost considerable ground.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Muirhead said that Mrs Neal should have stayed out because she was aware that there was another horse on her inside, evidenced by video footage showing that she looked around.
Under cross examination Mrs Neal asked Mr Muirhead whether or not there was sufficient room for Mr Butcher to have moved his horse up on the inside of her. Mr Muirhead responded that although there may be some merit in this proposition, Mrs Neal should have held her position and not moved back onto the running line.
Mr Z Butcher was called to give evidence by the Informant. He told the Committee that he was trailing Mrs Neal and she ran off and then came back down too quickly, adding that she could have avoided the incident by waiting 10 or 20 metres longer. He said that in doing so Mrs Neal did not give his horse, Saffron Castleton, sufficient room. Mr Butcher did not know whether the two horses made contact, but as a result he said that Saffron Castleton broke and lost ground.
Under cross examination Mrs Neal asked Mr Butcher whether he thought there was enough room to manoeuvre his horse and cart through the gap. Mr Butcher said that there was sufficient room and that he called out to Mrs Neal when he was endeavouring to take the gap.
Mr Muirhead did not re-examine Mr Butcher.
Mrs Neal told the Committee that she was firmly of the view that because the horses involved were only two year olds, Mr Butcher should not have taken the gap on the inside of her.
In summing up Mr Muirhead said that the evidence is clear that Mrs Neal moved out and then back inwards to the running line and she caused Saffron Castleton to break. Mr Muirhead acknowledged as a factor, that the horses involved were two year old trotters.
In summing up Mrs Neal emphasised that after her horse moved outward, her subsequent inward movement was not deliberate.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the evidence. The Committee's independent assessment of the incident is that Zimple, driven by Mrs Neal did run out at the 300 metre mark. This allowed Saffron Castleton, driven by Mr Butcher to take up the gap and move inside of Zimple. The gap closed when Mrs Neal allowed Zimple to move back down on to the running line when not sufficiently clear.
The resultant interference caused Saffron Castleton to break. The committee accepts that the horses involved in this incident are two year old trotters with limited race experience and that this may have been a factor.
Decision:
The Committee finds that Mrs Neal made an error of judgement in allowing her horse to move back down onto the running line when not clear of the horse on her inside. Therefore she failed to exercise the required standard of care in the circumstances.
The Committee finds the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Muirhead submitted that the starting point for a charge of this nature where there has been a resultant relegation is a fine of $600 (or equivalent driving days). He submitted that because the level of carelessness was below mid-range a fine of $400 may be a more appropriate starting point. He said that Mrs Neal has one previous breach of this rule during the previous 12 months.
Mrs Neal submitted that she would prefer a fine as opposed to suspension. She asked the Committee to take into account the low stake of the race (i.e. $4000) and the fact that the horses involved were inexperienced two year old trotters.
reasonsforpenalty:
The JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a charge of careless driving resulting in relegation is 10 drives or $500. In this case Mrs Neal’s drive, Zimple was relegated from first to third place. This is an aggravating factor.
The Committee has assessed the level of carelessness as being slightly below mid-range and that the horses involved in the incident are inexperienced two year olds. The Committee also accepts that this was a low status race with a stake of $4000. Overall Mrs Neal has a good driving record, albeit she has breached this particular rule once previously in the last 12 months. These are mitigating factors.
penalty:
The Committee imposes a fine of $300.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: Mr J Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mrs L Neal - Driver of ZIMPLE
Otherperson: Mr Z Butcher - Witness for the Informant
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 75b75c0a054982434fc23348fecc7a20
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 1
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 6130f147ddd4faccd3e17646d611c2e6
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 16/03/2012
meet_title: Auckland TC - 16 March 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "GJones", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "26", "Total": "16.12", "kmprice": 16.120000000000001, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: auckland-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Auckland TC