Ashburton RC 16 December 2016 – R1- Adjourned – heard 26 December 2016 – Decision dated 28 December 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA13553
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU),
Informant
AND
MR CHRIS JOHNSON, Licensed jockey (Class A),
Respondent
Information: A8106
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman, Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondent in person, with the assistance of Mr M Pitman and Ms B Middlewood
Date of hearing and oral decision: 26 December 2016
Date of written decision: 28 December 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr Johnson was charged with a breach of r 638(1)(c) in that in race 1 at a race meeting conducted by Ashburton Racing Club at Ashburton on 16 December 2016, he directed his mount PIPPI REA inwards causing severe crowding to RADIANT (Mr R Firdhaus) who became awkwardly placed on heels for a distance.
[2] The information was laid on raceday and a hearing of the information was opened and adjourned sine die on the day. The matter was heard at the Wingatui racecourse prior to the Boxing Day meeting on 26 December with the agreement of the parties concerned.
[3] Rule 638(1) provides: “A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be (c) improper.”
Informant’s case
[4] Mr Davidson first referred to the dictionary definition of “improper” which was “not in accord with accepted standards” or “unprofessional”. He said the Informant’s case was that there was clearly room for RADIANT to take a gap to the outside of WINDERMERE LASS and to the inside of PIPPI REA. As the horse approached the gap, Mr Johnson directed his horse back in towards the rail and buffeted RADIANT to in behind WINDERMERE LASS.
[5] Mr McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated on the videos that after shifting out a little early in the run home Mr Johnson came back in after a gap presented itself for RADIANT, and put that horse on to the heels of WINDERMERE LASS.
[6] Mr McLaughlin reiterated there was a clear run for Mr Firdhaus between Mr Johnson and Ms Barnes (WINDERMERE LASS). He said after he had shifted out Mr Johnson had directed his mount back in and was riding with his elbows out. RADIANT had clipped a heel but had not lost momentum. RADIANT had gone on to win the race.
[7] Mr Davidson continued by stating Mr Johnson was riding forward and was angling back in towards the rail. He said while Mr Johnson had his left elbow out and there had been contact, the RIU was not alleging that this was deliberate. He emphasised this formed no part of their case.
[8] Mr Davidson said Mr Firdhaus had advised the Stewards that he had clipped a heel of WINDERMERE LASS through the actions of Mr Johnson pushing his mount RADIANT back across the heels of WINDERMERE LASS.
Respondent’s case
[9] Mr Pitman spoke on behalf of Mr Johnson. He produced a veterinarian certificate that stated that the Club veterinarian had inspected PIPPI REA immediately after the race at the request of the Stipendiary Stewards and she had detected shin soreness in the left front. It was tender to touch (on palpation).
[10] Mr Pitman demonstrated on the videos that WINDERMERE LASS had moved off the rail at the same time as the Respondent had moved in. He thought WINDERMERE LASS had shifted only a little, perhaps three or four inches, but it was enough to contribute to the interference that Mr Firdhaus had received.
[11] Mr Pitman said Mr Johnson accepted he had shifted in and he believed that the breach was merely one of careless riding at the low end.
[12] Mr Pitman stated that PIPPI REA had tended on the day to roll in when placed under pressure. He estimated this to be about two to three horse widths. He demonstrated on the videos that after shifting out briefly prior to the incident in question, PIPPI REA had rolled back in and, when later placed under pressure by Mr Johnson to hold fourth or fifth, the horse had rolled in again. He queried whether this was because PIPPI REA was sore on the day. He noted that PIPPI REA had moved in more on the second occasion in the home straight than it had on the first.
[13] Mr Pitman also emphasised that Mr Johnson’s actions had not cost RADIANT the race. He reiterated WINDERMERE LASS had rolled out as Mr Johnson had rolled in and that Mr Johnson had put the stick away at the point of contact. He said Mr Johnson was using the whip in his left hand and he believed Mr Johnson had attempted to straighten his horse. Mr Pitman agreed with our observation that PIPPI REA had shifted in significantly before the point at which he believed the Respondent had attempted to straighten PIPPI REA.
[14] Mr Johnson stated that just prior to PIPPI REA shifting in it had drifted out. He then had to straighten the horse. After straightening, the horse had then shifted in. This was “far more than expected”. He emphasised this was the third time he had ridden PIPPI REA. He had had no issues with the horse on the previous occasions, and was surprised at its behaviour on this occasion. He had a lot of time for the horse, and it had always been tractable.
[15] Mr Johnson said that as PIPPI REA had come in WINDERMERE LASS had come out and PIPPI REA and RADIANT had come together. This had turned the back end of PIPPI REA out. He had then come off RADIANT. PIPPI REA was racing very greenly and he was very disappointed in its run. He had spoken to Mrs Parsons, the co-trainer, who had agreed that the horse’s run was very disappointing.
[16] Ms Middlewood stated that PIPPI REA had had a stone bruise and had not gone to the beach before raceday. She said PIPPI REA was racing on a firm track over 1400 metres and the horse had not travelled as well as it had at its previous starts.
[17] Mr Johnson stated that PIPPI REA had drifted out and in. When PIPPI REA drifted out he had tried to pull the horse back on to its line. He demonstrated the movement of PIPPI REA on the videos. He said when the horse rolled in he was holding the reins loosely and had the whip and rein in his left hand. He was tapping PIPPI REA on the near side shoulder. He normally rode with elbows out and did not believe he was pulling on the inside rein.
[18] Mr Johnson said he was unaware RADIANT was to his inside when he was shifting in. He had thought he was going straight and PIPPI REA had moved more than he had anticipated. The first he knew Mr Firdhaus was there was at the point of contact.
Summing up
[19] Mr Davidson submitted the video evidence clearly showed that Mr Johnson had directed his mount inwards to keep Mr Firdhaus in a pocket. He believed Mr Johnson was pulling on the left rein. The inwards movement was deliberate.
[20] Mr Pitman said it had become very tight. The three horses were all moving about. He said the videos demonstrated that Mr Johnson had never changed his action with his left hand and that WINDERMERE LASS had moved out at the point of contact. He again emphasised that PIPPI REA had moved both in and out and that Mr Johnson’s hands were loose on the reins. He said the Respondent was not steering PIPPI REA inwards; his actions were not deliberate.
[21] Mr Johnson disputed he was pulling on the inside (left) rein. He was riding PIPPI REA in his normal way with his elbows out and with the stick in his left hand. PIPPI REA had drifted out and in and he was not aware RADIANT was there until there was contact. The movement with his left hand had never varied. He emphasised the veterinarian report had stated that PIPPI REA had issues after the race and he thought this might explain why PIPPI REA had been more erratic than when he had previously ridden it. For a $2.50 favourite, the horse had been disappointing.
[22] Mr Pitman said a charge of improper riding was a rare charge and he did not believe the Informant had proved the charge.
Decision as to r 638(1)(c) (improper riding)
[23] We first emphasise that there is no allegation that the Respondent has elbowed Mr Firdhaus. That simply is not part of the charge before us today. We are thus concerned with the fact that PIPPI REA has moved inwards on an angled run for some distance and has come into contact with RADIANT.
[24] The veterinarian evidence is to the effect that PIPPI REA was sore in the near front when examined after the race. Mr Johnson has stated that the horse raced erratically in the race in question; whereas on the two previous occasions he had ridden the horse it had been quite tractable. The horse’s performance on the day had puzzled him and its trainers.
[25] The videos demonstrated that PIPPI REA had rolled out prior to the incident and that the Respondent had straightened the horse before it moved in. It is evident that PIPPI REA shifted in to such an extent that there was contact with RADIANT. And it was Mr Firdhaus’s resisting of this movement that caused the back end of PIPPI REA to turn out.
[26] Significantly, we can detect no attempt by Mr Johnson to straighten PIPPI REA before the contact with RADIANT. However, there is no evidence that Mr Johnson’s actions were deliberate in that PIPPI REA was steered into RADIANT in order to keep that horse in a pocket behind WINDERMERE LASS.
[27] There is no doubt that was the effect of the Respondent’s actions and we can understand why the Informant has alleged Mr Johnson’s actions were deliberate but the charge is a serious one and we have to be satisfied at least to the standard of the balance of probabilities that his ride was improper. We simply are not. The videos suggest that the reins are loose, as both Mr Johnson and Mr Pitman have emphasised, and it is clear that Mr Johnson is using the whip with the left hand.
[28] After adjourning to consider the matter, we returned and stated that we found the charge of improper riding not to be proved but we proposed to exercise our power pursuant to r 915(5) and to amend the information to one of careless riding.
Decision as to r 638(1)(d) (careless riding)
[29] The charge was amended to careless riding. Rule 638(1) provides: “A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be (d) careless.” Neither party wished to make submissions.
[30] Mr Johnson pursuant to r 915(6)(a) admitted the information as amended.
[31] We accept the evidence already given as applying to the amended information. Neither party wished to call further evidence.
[32] As provided in r 915(1)(d), we find the charge of careless riding to be proved.
Submissions as to penalty
[33] We adjourned the hearing to allow the parties time to prepare submissions.
[34] We required Mr Davidson to produce the Respondent’s record. This showed two breaches of the careless riding rule in the last 12 months. One breach was on 5 November 2016 (5 days) and the other on 30 April 2016 (4 days). Mr Johnson has had 324 rides this season for 37 wins and is currently the leading South Island rider and is third in the premiership. Mr Davidson described this record as good.
[35] Mr Davidson submitted that a penalty of six weeks’ suspension was appropriate. When questioned by Mr Pitman, he acknowledged this was the penalty he would have been seeking had the charge of improper riding been proved. Mr Davidson added this was a serious breach of the rules and, while the RIU still believed the Respondent’s actions were improper, they could rightly also be viewed as careless riding at the top end of the scale.
[36] Mr Pitman emphasised this was a downgraded charge and the penalty that would have been imposed for improper riding was not appropriate in this case. He calculated that the Informant’s submission would amount to an 18-day suspension, which he stated was unprecedented for careless riding.
[37] Mr Pitman asked us to consider the penalty imposed in Moseley on 22 November 2016. The Appeals Tribunal increased a four-day suspension to six days. As Mr Moseley’s actions had caused severe interference and resulted in a fall, he believed this Committee should view the Respondent’s actions in a more favourable light.
[38] Mr Pitman emphasised that Mr Johnson’s actions had not stopped RADIANT from winning the race and there was no injury to horse or rider. He submitted the starting point should be six days and the final penalty one of four days.
Decision as to penalty
[39] The factual basis on which we impose penalty is that the Respondent has allowed his horse to roll inwards towards the rail over some distance in the home straight until PIPPI REA came into contact with RADIANT. As Mr Davidson emphasised in his submissions, at no time did Mr Johnson stop riding and straighten his horse. We thus do not accept the Respondent’s submissions that he took action to straighten PIPPI REA prior to contact with RADIANT.
[40] Mr Johnson has said he was unaware that RADIANT was racing to his inside. He should have known the horse was there. RADIANT was to his inside and racing on the rail and trailing WINDERMERE LASS from the time the two horses (RADIANT and PIPPI REA) exited the final bend.
[41] We impose penalty on the basis that Mr Johnson is a Central Districts and South Island rider. The Informant agreed with this conclusion and the Respondent only weakly resisted it. Mr Johnson rides in the northern area principally on premier days. We were informed Mr Johnson is actively seeking rides as he is “chasing the premiership”.
[42] We view this breach as being towards the high end. Mr Pitman has asked us to view the breach as being less serious than that in the recent Moseley case. We see no need for the Moseley case to be regarded as a benchmark and the case itself does not purport to lay down any starting point that Judicial Committees should adopt. However, we accept that Mr Moseley’s actions resulted in a fall, whereas Mr Johnson’s have not. But that could rightly be viewed as fortuitous, as there was clear contact with Mr Firdhaus and Mr Johnson’s horse. Mr Firdhaus was pocketed behind WINDERMERE LASS and came into contact with the heels of that horse. RADIANT could have fallen; it did not. The Respondent can take no credit for this fact. PIPPI REA was only pulled off RADIANT after Mr Firdhaus resisted the Respondent’s inwards movement, which we assess as being some two-horse widths.
[43] We see no reason to view Mr Johnson’s actions as being less culpable than those of Mr Moseley. We are also aware that that case was an appeal by the RIU and it is an accepted practice on a prosecution appeal for the penalty to be increased only to the minimum penalty that is appropriate in the circumstances. In addition, the RIU in Moseley did not seek a penalty greater than six days. Mr Moseley was sentenced on the basis he was a South Island rider and this penalty equated to three calendar weeks. But that said, we intend to approach the penalty on the accepted basis, which is to have regard to the JCA Penalty Guide.
[44] The starting point is five days. We view the breach as near the top end of careless. An upward adjustment is necessary. We believe a starting point of eight days is appropriate. Mr Johnson rolled inwards for some distance and took no steps to straighten PIPPI REA before contact.
[45] Mitigating factors are the Respondent’s record, which we would view as very good, having regard to the number of rides he has had this past 12 months, and his immediate admission of the amended charge.
[46] This takes us to a penalty of six days. We must then have regard to the crowded Xmas/ New Year racing calendar.
[47] Mr Johnson has asked that the penalty be deferred until after racing on 1 January. Mr Davidson did not object to this. Ms Middlewood satisfied us that Mr Johnson had engagements up until this day. Mr Johnson helpfully acknowledged he was not intending to ride at Tauherenikau on 2 January. Otaki on 4 January was also discussed. It appeared unlikely, because of the travel time involved, that he would have ridden at that meeting.
[48] We need to be satisfied that the days of suspension that Mr Johnson serves are genuine days. This is the practice affirmed in the Moseley decision. We suspend Mr Johnson from the end of racing on 1 January up until the end of racing on 14 January. When we do the maths, this amounts to eight Central Districts and South Island days. After the Respondent’s concession and viewing the compressed nature of the calendar, we assess this is in reality as six days. We are aware that the last day of the suspension is a premier day, but believe it is appropriate that this day be included. We emphasise the need for our penalty to hold Mr Johnson accountable and to deter both him and other riders from actions which constitute high end careless riding and which may put both the jockey him or herself, and fellow riders and horses at risk of injury or worse.
[49] The days encompassed by the suspension are:
2 January - (Tauherenikau)
3 January - Omakau
4 January - (Otaki)
5 January - Reefton
7 January - Marton
11 January - Hokitika
12 January - Wanganui
14 January - Trentham
3 January - Omakau
4 January - (Otaki)
5 January - Reefton
7 January - Marton
11 January - Hokitika
12 January - Wanganui
14 January - Trentham
[50] The matter was heard on a raceday. There is no order for costs.
Dated at Dunedin this 28th day of December 2016
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 28/12/2016
Publish Date: 28/12/2016
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: 4495b04469424d00f909bca330a48800
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 28/12/2016
hearing_title: Ashburton RC 16 December 2016 - R1- Adjourned - heard 26 December 2016 - Decision dated 28 December 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU),
Informant
AND
MR CHRIS JOHNSON, Licensed jockey (Class A),
Respondent
Information: A8106
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman, Mr P Knowles, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr M Davidson, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondent in person, with the assistance of Mr M Pitman and Ms B Middlewood
Date of hearing and oral decision: 26 December 2016
Date of written decision: 28 December 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr Johnson was charged with a breach of r 638(1)(c) in that in race 1 at a race meeting conducted by Ashburton Racing Club at Ashburton on 16 December 2016, he directed his mount PIPPI REA inwards causing severe crowding to RADIANT (Mr R Firdhaus) who became awkwardly placed on heels for a distance.
[2] The information was laid on raceday and a hearing of the information was opened and adjourned sine die on the day. The matter was heard at the Wingatui racecourse prior to the Boxing Day meeting on 26 December with the agreement of the parties concerned.
[3] Rule 638(1) provides: “A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be (c) improper.”
Informant’s case
[4] Mr Davidson first referred to the dictionary definition of “improper” which was “not in accord with accepted standards” or “unprofessional”. He said the Informant’s case was that there was clearly room for RADIANT to take a gap to the outside of WINDERMERE LASS and to the inside of PIPPI REA. As the horse approached the gap, Mr Johnson directed his horse back in towards the rail and buffeted RADIANT to in behind WINDERMERE LASS.
[5] Mr McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated on the videos that after shifting out a little early in the run home Mr Johnson came back in after a gap presented itself for RADIANT, and put that horse on to the heels of WINDERMERE LASS.
[6] Mr McLaughlin reiterated there was a clear run for Mr Firdhaus between Mr Johnson and Ms Barnes (WINDERMERE LASS). He said after he had shifted out Mr Johnson had directed his mount back in and was riding with his elbows out. RADIANT had clipped a heel but had not lost momentum. RADIANT had gone on to win the race.
[7] Mr Davidson continued by stating Mr Johnson was riding forward and was angling back in towards the rail. He said while Mr Johnson had his left elbow out and there had been contact, the RIU was not alleging that this was deliberate. He emphasised this formed no part of their case.
[8] Mr Davidson said Mr Firdhaus had advised the Stewards that he had clipped a heel of WINDERMERE LASS through the actions of Mr Johnson pushing his mount RADIANT back across the heels of WINDERMERE LASS.
Respondent’s case
[9] Mr Pitman spoke on behalf of Mr Johnson. He produced a veterinarian certificate that stated that the Club veterinarian had inspected PIPPI REA immediately after the race at the request of the Stipendiary Stewards and she had detected shin soreness in the left front. It was tender to touch (on palpation).
[10] Mr Pitman demonstrated on the videos that WINDERMERE LASS had moved off the rail at the same time as the Respondent had moved in. He thought WINDERMERE LASS had shifted only a little, perhaps three or four inches, but it was enough to contribute to the interference that Mr Firdhaus had received.
[11] Mr Pitman said Mr Johnson accepted he had shifted in and he believed that the breach was merely one of careless riding at the low end.
[12] Mr Pitman stated that PIPPI REA had tended on the day to roll in when placed under pressure. He estimated this to be about two to three horse widths. He demonstrated on the videos that after shifting out briefly prior to the incident in question, PIPPI REA had rolled back in and, when later placed under pressure by Mr Johnson to hold fourth or fifth, the horse had rolled in again. He queried whether this was because PIPPI REA was sore on the day. He noted that PIPPI REA had moved in more on the second occasion in the home straight than it had on the first.
[13] Mr Pitman also emphasised that Mr Johnson’s actions had not cost RADIANT the race. He reiterated WINDERMERE LASS had rolled out as Mr Johnson had rolled in and that Mr Johnson had put the stick away at the point of contact. He said Mr Johnson was using the whip in his left hand and he believed Mr Johnson had attempted to straighten his horse. Mr Pitman agreed with our observation that PIPPI REA had shifted in significantly before the point at which he believed the Respondent had attempted to straighten PIPPI REA.
[14] Mr Johnson stated that just prior to PIPPI REA shifting in it had drifted out. He then had to straighten the horse. After straightening, the horse had then shifted in. This was “far more than expected”. He emphasised this was the third time he had ridden PIPPI REA. He had had no issues with the horse on the previous occasions, and was surprised at its behaviour on this occasion. He had a lot of time for the horse, and it had always been tractable.
[15] Mr Johnson said that as PIPPI REA had come in WINDERMERE LASS had come out and PIPPI REA and RADIANT had come together. This had turned the back end of PIPPI REA out. He had then come off RADIANT. PIPPI REA was racing very greenly and he was very disappointed in its run. He had spoken to Mrs Parsons, the co-trainer, who had agreed that the horse’s run was very disappointing.
[16] Ms Middlewood stated that PIPPI REA had had a stone bruise and had not gone to the beach before raceday. She said PIPPI REA was racing on a firm track over 1400 metres and the horse had not travelled as well as it had at its previous starts.
[17] Mr Johnson stated that PIPPI REA had drifted out and in. When PIPPI REA drifted out he had tried to pull the horse back on to its line. He demonstrated the movement of PIPPI REA on the videos. He said when the horse rolled in he was holding the reins loosely and had the whip and rein in his left hand. He was tapping PIPPI REA on the near side shoulder. He normally rode with elbows out and did not believe he was pulling on the inside rein.
[18] Mr Johnson said he was unaware RADIANT was to his inside when he was shifting in. He had thought he was going straight and PIPPI REA had moved more than he had anticipated. The first he knew Mr Firdhaus was there was at the point of contact.
Summing up
[19] Mr Davidson submitted the video evidence clearly showed that Mr Johnson had directed his mount inwards to keep Mr Firdhaus in a pocket. He believed Mr Johnson was pulling on the left rein. The inwards movement was deliberate.
[20] Mr Pitman said it had become very tight. The three horses were all moving about. He said the videos demonstrated that Mr Johnson had never changed his action with his left hand and that WINDERMERE LASS had moved out at the point of contact. He again emphasised that PIPPI REA had moved both in and out and that Mr Johnson’s hands were loose on the reins. He said the Respondent was not steering PIPPI REA inwards; his actions were not deliberate.
[21] Mr Johnson disputed he was pulling on the inside (left) rein. He was riding PIPPI REA in his normal way with his elbows out and with the stick in his left hand. PIPPI REA had drifted out and in and he was not aware RADIANT was there until there was contact. The movement with his left hand had never varied. He emphasised the veterinarian report had stated that PIPPI REA had issues after the race and he thought this might explain why PIPPI REA had been more erratic than when he had previously ridden it. For a $2.50 favourite, the horse had been disappointing.
[22] Mr Pitman said a charge of improper riding was a rare charge and he did not believe the Informant had proved the charge.
Decision as to r 638(1)(c) (improper riding)
[23] We first emphasise that there is no allegation that the Respondent has elbowed Mr Firdhaus. That simply is not part of the charge before us today. We are thus concerned with the fact that PIPPI REA has moved inwards on an angled run for some distance and has come into contact with RADIANT.
[24] The veterinarian evidence is to the effect that PIPPI REA was sore in the near front when examined after the race. Mr Johnson has stated that the horse raced erratically in the race in question; whereas on the two previous occasions he had ridden the horse it had been quite tractable. The horse’s performance on the day had puzzled him and its trainers.
[25] The videos demonstrated that PIPPI REA had rolled out prior to the incident and that the Respondent had straightened the horse before it moved in. It is evident that PIPPI REA shifted in to such an extent that there was contact with RADIANT. And it was Mr Firdhaus’s resisting of this movement that caused the back end of PIPPI REA to turn out.
[26] Significantly, we can detect no attempt by Mr Johnson to straighten PIPPI REA before the contact with RADIANT. However, there is no evidence that Mr Johnson’s actions were deliberate in that PIPPI REA was steered into RADIANT in order to keep that horse in a pocket behind WINDERMERE LASS.
[27] There is no doubt that was the effect of the Respondent’s actions and we can understand why the Informant has alleged Mr Johnson’s actions were deliberate but the charge is a serious one and we have to be satisfied at least to the standard of the balance of probabilities that his ride was improper. We simply are not. The videos suggest that the reins are loose, as both Mr Johnson and Mr Pitman have emphasised, and it is clear that Mr Johnson is using the whip with the left hand.
[28] After adjourning to consider the matter, we returned and stated that we found the charge of improper riding not to be proved but we proposed to exercise our power pursuant to r 915(5) and to amend the information to one of careless riding.
Decision as to r 638(1)(d) (careless riding)
[29] The charge was amended to careless riding. Rule 638(1) provides: “A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be (d) careless.” Neither party wished to make submissions.
[30] Mr Johnson pursuant to r 915(6)(a) admitted the information as amended.
[31] We accept the evidence already given as applying to the amended information. Neither party wished to call further evidence.
[32] As provided in r 915(1)(d), we find the charge of careless riding to be proved.
Submissions as to penalty
[33] We adjourned the hearing to allow the parties time to prepare submissions.
[34] We required Mr Davidson to produce the Respondent’s record. This showed two breaches of the careless riding rule in the last 12 months. One breach was on 5 November 2016 (5 days) and the other on 30 April 2016 (4 days). Mr Johnson has had 324 rides this season for 37 wins and is currently the leading South Island rider and is third in the premiership. Mr Davidson described this record as good.
[35] Mr Davidson submitted that a penalty of six weeks’ suspension was appropriate. When questioned by Mr Pitman, he acknowledged this was the penalty he would have been seeking had the charge of improper riding been proved. Mr Davidson added this was a serious breach of the rules and, while the RIU still believed the Respondent’s actions were improper, they could rightly also be viewed as careless riding at the top end of the scale.
[36] Mr Pitman emphasised this was a downgraded charge and the penalty that would have been imposed for improper riding was not appropriate in this case. He calculated that the Informant’s submission would amount to an 18-day suspension, which he stated was unprecedented for careless riding.
[37] Mr Pitman asked us to consider the penalty imposed in Moseley on 22 November 2016. The Appeals Tribunal increased a four-day suspension to six days. As Mr Moseley’s actions had caused severe interference and resulted in a fall, he believed this Committee should view the Respondent’s actions in a more favourable light.
[38] Mr Pitman emphasised that Mr Johnson’s actions had not stopped RADIANT from winning the race and there was no injury to horse or rider. He submitted the starting point should be six days and the final penalty one of four days.
Decision as to penalty
[39] The factual basis on which we impose penalty is that the Respondent has allowed his horse to roll inwards towards the rail over some distance in the home straight until PIPPI REA came into contact with RADIANT. As Mr Davidson emphasised in his submissions, at no time did Mr Johnson stop riding and straighten his horse. We thus do not accept the Respondent’s submissions that he took action to straighten PIPPI REA prior to contact with RADIANT.
[40] Mr Johnson has said he was unaware that RADIANT was racing to his inside. He should have known the horse was there. RADIANT was to his inside and racing on the rail and trailing WINDERMERE LASS from the time the two horses (RADIANT and PIPPI REA) exited the final bend.
[41] We impose penalty on the basis that Mr Johnson is a Central Districts and South Island rider. The Informant agreed with this conclusion and the Respondent only weakly resisted it. Mr Johnson rides in the northern area principally on premier days. We were informed Mr Johnson is actively seeking rides as he is “chasing the premiership”.
[42] We view this breach as being towards the high end. Mr Pitman has asked us to view the breach as being less serious than that in the recent Moseley case. We see no need for the Moseley case to be regarded as a benchmark and the case itself does not purport to lay down any starting point that Judicial Committees should adopt. However, we accept that Mr Moseley’s actions resulted in a fall, whereas Mr Johnson’s have not. But that could rightly be viewed as fortuitous, as there was clear contact with Mr Firdhaus and Mr Johnson’s horse. Mr Firdhaus was pocketed behind WINDERMERE LASS and came into contact with the heels of that horse. RADIANT could have fallen; it did not. The Respondent can take no credit for this fact. PIPPI REA was only pulled off RADIANT after Mr Firdhaus resisted the Respondent’s inwards movement, which we assess as being some two-horse widths.
[43] We see no reason to view Mr Johnson’s actions as being less culpable than those of Mr Moseley. We are also aware that that case was an appeal by the RIU and it is an accepted practice on a prosecution appeal for the penalty to be increased only to the minimum penalty that is appropriate in the circumstances. In addition, the RIU in Moseley did not seek a penalty greater than six days. Mr Moseley was sentenced on the basis he was a South Island rider and this penalty equated to three calendar weeks. But that said, we intend to approach the penalty on the accepted basis, which is to have regard to the JCA Penalty Guide.
[44] The starting point is five days. We view the breach as near the top end of careless. An upward adjustment is necessary. We believe a starting point of eight days is appropriate. Mr Johnson rolled inwards for some distance and took no steps to straighten PIPPI REA before contact.
[45] Mitigating factors are the Respondent’s record, which we would view as very good, having regard to the number of rides he has had this past 12 months, and his immediate admission of the amended charge.
[46] This takes us to a penalty of six days. We must then have regard to the crowded Xmas/ New Year racing calendar.
[47] Mr Johnson has asked that the penalty be deferred until after racing on 1 January. Mr Davidson did not object to this. Ms Middlewood satisfied us that Mr Johnson had engagements up until this day. Mr Johnson helpfully acknowledged he was not intending to ride at Tauherenikau on 2 January. Otaki on 4 January was also discussed. It appeared unlikely, because of the travel time involved, that he would have ridden at that meeting.
[48] We need to be satisfied that the days of suspension that Mr Johnson serves are genuine days. This is the practice affirmed in the Moseley decision. We suspend Mr Johnson from the end of racing on 1 January up until the end of racing on 14 January. When we do the maths, this amounts to eight Central Districts and South Island days. After the Respondent’s concession and viewing the compressed nature of the calendar, we assess this is in reality as six days. We are aware that the last day of the suspension is a premier day, but believe it is appropriate that this day be included. We emphasise the need for our penalty to hold Mr Johnson accountable and to deter both him and other riders from actions which constitute high end careless riding and which may put both the jockey him or herself, and fellow riders and horses at risk of injury or worse.
[49] The days encompassed by the suspension are:
2 January - (Tauherenikau)
3 January - Omakau
4 January - (Otaki)
5 January - Reefton
7 January - Marton
11 January - Hokitika
12 January - Wanganui
14 January - Trentham
3 January - Omakau
4 January - (Otaki)
5 January - Reefton
7 January - Marton
11 January - Hokitika
12 January - Wanganui
14 January - Trentham
[50] The matter was heard on a raceday. There is no order for costs.
Dated at Dunedin this 28th day of December 2016
Geoff Hall, 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: