Rangiora HRC 7 December 2011 – R 5
ID: JCA17807
Meet Title:
Rangiora HRC - 7 December 2011
Meet Chair:
JPhelan
Meet Committee Member 1:
RMcKenzie
Race Date:
2011/12/07
Race Number:
R 5
Decision:
As Mr Chmiel had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).
Penalty:
Mr and Mrs Chmiel were fined the sum of $200-00.
Charge:
Alleged late scratching.
Facts:
Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren filed an Information against Licensed Trainers Mr T. S. and Mrs G. S. Chmiel alleging a breach of Rule 834(2)(a) in that they late scratched “Tiz A Secret” (1) from Race 5, the “Mr Feelgood” Handicap Trot.
The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 834(2)(a) (in that) co-trainer T. S. Chmiel scratched Tiz A Secret at 5-35pm on Tuesday 6 December 2011 which was after the right of re-entry time..”
Rules 834(2)(a) read as follows –
“(2)(a) After the official right of re-entry time no person shall scratch from a race unless there are sufficient circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched full details of which shall be given to the Stipendiary Steward in writing;”
Mr Chmiel had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, but at the start of the hearing he explained that he did admit the late scratching, but disputed that he should be fined for this breach.
A breach of Rule 834(2)(a) is usually dealt with under the Minor Infringement Notice system. However in this case Mr Chmiel did not accept the penalty (a fine of $200-00) provided for under Rule 1105A, and accordingly Rule 1105A(3)(a) required that an Information be filed on this occasion
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Ydgren gave evidence that the scratching of this horse was advised at 5-35pm on Tuesday which was 35 minutes late. Mr Chmiel did not dispute these facts.
Mr Chmiel gave evidence that the horse was being sold, but the money did not come through until after the scratching time. The purchaser did not want the horse to start to-day, so Mr Chmiel said he was obliged to late scratch it so as not to prejudice the sale.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Chmiel gave evidence that he should not be fined in this case, as he was obliged to scratch the horse as it had been sold by the owner. It was Mr Chmiel’s submission that these circumstances left him with no alternative but to scratch the horse, and that a fine should not be imposed.
In relation to penalty Mr Ydgren submitted that a fine of $200-00 should be imposed in this case. He submitted that it was quite common for a horse to be late scratched when it was sold, but that this is not a sufficient reason to reduce the amount of a fine.
Reasons for Penalty:
On resuming the hearing we gave the following oral decision on penalty.
“We have carefully considered the evidence, and we are satisfied that “Tiz A Secret” was scratched by co-trainer Mr Chmiel after the time for scratching.
Mr Chmiel admitted the breach but disputed that he should be fined because the horse had been sold, and the new owner had directed that it be scratched from today’s race as a condition of the sale.
In the absence of special circumstances (and there were none) this is an offence of strict liability. We are satisfied that the circumstances of this scratching are unexceptional, and there is no reason to depart from the Minor Infringement fine of $200-00.”
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: efdc38def04214f11a94152cb340fa36
informantnumber: A5322
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: admitted
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 04/12/2011
hearing_title: Rangiora HRC 7 December 2011 - R 5
charge:
Alleged late scratching.
facts:
Stipendiary Steward Mr N. M. Ydgren filed an Information against Licensed Trainers Mr T. S. and Mrs G. S. Chmiel alleging a breach of Rule 834(2)(a) in that they late scratched “Tiz A Secret” (1) from Race 5, the “Mr Feelgood” Handicap Trot.
The charge reads as follows.
“I the above named informant allege that the above named Respondent committed a breach of Rule 834(2)(a) (in that) co-trainer T. S. Chmiel scratched Tiz A Secret at 5-35pm on Tuesday 6 December 2011 which was after the right of re-entry time..”
Rules 834(2)(a) read as follows –
“(2)(a) After the official right of re-entry time no person shall scratch from a race unless there are sufficient circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched full details of which shall be given to the Stipendiary Steward in writing;”
Mr Chmiel had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted, but at the start of the hearing he explained that he did admit the late scratching, but disputed that he should be fined for this breach.
A breach of Rule 834(2)(a) is usually dealt with under the Minor Infringement Notice system. However in this case Mr Chmiel did not accept the penalty (a fine of $200-00) provided for under Rule 1105A, and accordingly Rule 1105A(3)(a) required that an Information be filed on this occasion
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Ydgren gave evidence that the scratching of this horse was advised at 5-35pm on Tuesday which was 35 minutes late. Mr Chmiel did not dispute these facts.
Mr Chmiel gave evidence that the horse was being sold, but the money did not come through until after the scratching time. The purchaser did not want the horse to start to-day, so Mr Chmiel said he was obliged to late scratch it so as not to prejudice the sale.
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
As Mr Chmiel had admitted this breach of the Rules it was found to be proved in accordance with Rule 1111(1)(d).
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Chmiel gave evidence that he should not be fined in this case, as he was obliged to scratch the horse as it had been sold by the owner. It was Mr Chmiel’s submission that these circumstances left him with no alternative but to scratch the horse, and that a fine should not be imposed.
In relation to penalty Mr Ydgren submitted that a fine of $200-00 should be imposed in this case. He submitted that it was quite common for a horse to be late scratched when it was sold, but that this is not a sufficient reason to reduce the amount of a fine.
reasonsforpenalty:
On resuming the hearing we gave the following oral decision on penalty.
“We have carefully considered the evidence, and we are satisfied that “Tiz A Secret” was scratched by co-trainer Mr Chmiel after the time for scratching.
Mr Chmiel admitted the breach but disputed that he should be fined because the horse had been sold, and the new owner had directed that it be scratched from today’s race as a condition of the sale.
In the absence of special circumstances (and there were none) this is an offence of strict liability. We are satisfied that the circumstances of this scratching are unexceptional, and there is no reason to depart from the Minor Infringement fine of $200-00.”
penalty:
Mr and Mrs Chmiel were fined the sum of $200-00.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 834(2)(a)
Informant: Mr NM Ydgren - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr TS and Mrs GS Chmiel - Licensed Trainers
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 211627e69bf53beb800937688f7a56d3
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 5
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ec39f7af41ffcc75a45af8641849df74
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 07/12/2011
meet_title: Rangiora HRC - 7 December 2011
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: rangiora-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: JPhelan
meet_pm1: RMcKenzie
meet_pm2: none
name: Rangiora HRC