Appeal RIU v M Cameron – Decision dated 1 December 2015 – Chair, Mr M McKechnie

hearingid: 874a5023bd489e540f02a6b3a89c1075

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/12/2015

hearing_title: Appeal RIU v M Cameron - Decision dated 1 December 2015 - Chair, Mr M McKechnie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

Under the Racing Act 2003 and the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing

BETWEEN THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

APPELLANT

AND MATTHEW CAMERON (Class A Jockey)

RESPONDENT

Appeals Tribunal: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman & Mr Noel McCutcheon

Appearances: Mr John Oatham, Senior Stipendiary Steward for the RIU

Mr Matthew Cameron

Registrar: Mr Matthew Williamson

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL ELLERSLIE RACECOURSE

DATED THIS 1st DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a Raceday Judicial Committee given at Avondale on the 4 November 2015. The senior jockey Mr Matthew Cameron was charged with careless riding following the running of Race No 5. Mr Cameron was riding the horse POLYNESIA. It is said that somewhere between the 650m mark and the 400m mark as the horses were approaching and rounding the home corner POLYNESIA caused interference to the mount ridden by Mrs Trudy Thornton. Mrs Thornton’s mount was REPRISE. POLYNESIA won the race.

2. Mr Oatham for the RIU conducted a detailed analysis of the films. These are slightly out of sync but that has not in our opinion been of any real significance. There is a side-on film and there is a film from the front although it cannot be described as head-on in the sense that this expression is ordinarily understood.

3. The films demonstrate that Mr Cameron riding POLYNESIA in the well-known blue and white Vela colours was on the rail and went to move out from the rail. Mrs Thornton’s horse REPRISE was in a position described variously as loose two wide or perhaps three wide. As Mr Cameron moved POLYNESIA away from the rail it is his explanation that he was moving into a one off rail position where he was legitimately entitled to be placed and that this did not cause any interference to other horses.

4. Mr Oatham takes the position that Mr Cameron while entitled to move away from the rail continued to move away from the rail in such a way that this resulted in there being after some time an inevitable check to Mrs Thornton’s mount. In response to that it is Mr Cameron’s proposition that Mrs Thornton’s mount was checked because it ran out of room and not because of any actions taken on his part.

5. It is our view that while Mr Cameron was entitled to move away from the running rail he continued to move away from the rail and to move out in such a way that Mrs Thornton’s horse ran out of racing room. The films show quite clearly that the horse was significantly checked, its head went up in the air and it lost its place in the field. In our judgment if Mr Cameron had moved out one off the rail and not continued to move out and forward then the check may not have occurred. We cannot of course be completely confident about that but we are of the view that the causation of the interference to Mrs Thornton’s mount was the actions taken by Mr Cameron. It was in our view a misjudgement by Mr Cameron to continue to move forward and at the same time move out thereby leading to a situation where Mrs Thornton’s mount ran out of racing room. Mr Cameron suggested that Ms Spratt’s horse named BATTLE FIELD moved out from the running rail ahead of him and that this in some way contributed to the situation and excused his riding. It can be seen that BATTLE FIELD did appear to move slightly further from the rail than was previously its position but we do not believe that this is a consideration which materially affected the events which we have seen and which resulted in the interference to REPRISE.

6. For the reasons explained we take the view that the Judicial Committee on the day was in error in dismissing the charge against Mr Cameron. For completeness we pause to say that the standard of proof in cases of this kind, both before Raceday Judicial Committees and Appeal Tribunals is proof on the balance of probabilities. The leading authority is the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in Z v THE DENTAL COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE, New Zealand Law Reports 2009, page 1. Balance of probabilities means more likely than not and is a quite different standard of proof from the criminal standard of proof which requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Necessarily the more serious the charge the more compelling must be the evidence before the charge can be found to be proved. Here we are satisfied that the films demonstrate sufficiently clearly that the cause of the interference was the course taken by Mr Cameron on his mount POLYNESIA. We do not accept the characterisation by the Raceday Judicial Committee that the films were “inconclusive”. In our judgment the films do demonstrate that there was interference and that the cause of that was the course that Mr Cameron took on the horse POLYNESIA.

We now come to the penalty decision in relation to the finding of careless riding by Mr Cameron.

7. Mr Oatham for the RIU has pointed to the conventional starting point of five (5) days for careless riding. He categorised the riding on the occasion in question as being towards the lower end. He advised the Tribunal that Mr Cameron rides all over New Zealand and Mr Cameron’s riding record in recent years is well known to the members of the Tribunal. In the last twelve (12) months there have been two periods of suspension – one for four (4) days earlier in the twelve month period and then on 27 June at Whangarei a suspension of three (3) days. Clearly that period of suspension would indicate the careless riding on that occasion must have been very much at what is sometimes described as ”at the lower end”. In all of these circumstances Mr Oatham submitted that a suspension of four (4) days is appropriate.

8. Mr Cameron told the Tribunal that he has rides booked for this Saturday 5 December at Trentham. That is entirely unsurprising. As to the position on the following day Sunday 6 December there is some uncertainty. A thoroughbred meeting is scheduled at Waipukurau in the Hawkes Bay. Mr Oatham, for his part, acknowledged that Mr Cameron is a rider who rides throughout New Zealand. In these circumstances we do not consider it necessary to conduct some telephone inquiry as to whether or not rides have presently been booked for Mr Cameron at Waipukurau. We think it is appropriate to proceed on the basis that he does ride regularly in the Central Districts and therefore Sunday 6 December should be a day that is brought to account.

9. In fixing the term of suspension we have adopted in large measure the submissions made by Mr Oatham. This was careless riding but of a kind which involved something of a misjudgement on Mr Cameron’s part and in exchanges between Mr Cameron and the Tribunal it was made clear that he would not be penalised for having defended the charge. In our view he did have an explanation which may have been accepted and although we have come to a different view from that of the one person Raceday Judicial Committee Mr Cameron should not be further penalised on account of the fact that the charge has now been held to have been made out.

10. Mr Cameron, in 2007 you appeared before a Non-Raceday Judicial Committee in Hamilton at which I presided. I want to tell you that I have watched your career since then and you have done very well. Things were in a bit of a mess then but now they are very different. You have done very well and you deserve credit for that.

11. The appropriate suspension is four (4) days. It will commence on Sunday 6 December and will expire at the conclusion of racing on Friday 11 December on which day there is a race meeting at Tauranga.

12. The question of costs was raised. Mr Oatham indicated that the RIU would not be seeking any costs. That is an appropriate position to take. The Tribunal explained to Mr Cameron that although he has now been found guilty of careless riding he is not going to be required to pay costs towards the expenses incurred by the JCA in that he came to this hearing with an earlier decision of the JCA which had gone in his favour. In these circumstances just explained there will be no costs required to be paid by Mr Cameron to either the RIU or the JCA.

DATED this 1st day of December 2015

Murray McKechnie

Chairman

Pursuant to Rule 920(4)

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: