Adjourned hearing RIU v NP Williamson 23 April 2021 – R 10 (heard 2 May 2021 at Invercargill) – Penalty Decision dated 17 May 2021 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA18263
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
IN INVERCARGILL
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND-MR NATHAN WILLIAMSON
Licensed Horseman
Respondent
Information: ----A13957
Judicial Committee: ---Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Knowles, Member
Appearing: -Miss R Haley, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondent in person
PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-In our decision of 10 May we found Mr Williamson to be in breach of r 869(7A)(a) and (b) in that on 23 April 2021 at a race meeting conducted by Winton Harness Racing Club in Race 10 he allowed his horse to race inside the markers in the home straight.
[2]-We called for and have received oral and written penalty submissions. A teleconference was held on 14 May.
Informant’s submissions
[3]-Miss Haley stated that Mr Williamson has had 7467 lifetime drives. So far this season he has driven in 394 races and, last season, 399. Mr Williamson is a very experienced and busy driver, especially in the Southern region.
[4]-With respect to previous breaches, Miss Haley said that Mr Williamson was fined $300 under r 869(4) on 13 February last for driving in a manner likely to cause interference. He has had 123 drives since that sanction. Whilst not the same Rule, the RIU submitted it was an interference-based Rule and, due to it being only three months ago, the Stewards viewed the Respondent’s record to be neutral.
[5]-The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees references a starting point for a breach of r 869(7A)(a) as a 2-drive suspension or a $100 fine and a 4-drive suspension or a $200 fine for a breach of r 869(7A)(b).
[6]-The RIU submitted that a suspension was the appropriate form of sanction.
[7]-The RIU submitted that as a consequence of Mr Williamson’s actions, the horse, IDEALISM, was disqualified from 4th placing. This had an adverse effect not only on the Connections but also the betting public who had invested on Mr Williamson's horse. Mr Williamson’s horse was 1/3 in the betting. Where a Driver’s actions cause a relegation or disqualification, the Penalty Guide notes under r 869(3)(b) that a starting point of a 3-meeting suspension should be adopted.
[8]-There were no mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, the Stewards submitted that the appropriate length of penalty was a 3-meeting suspension.
[9]-Miss Haley emphasised in her oral submissions that the Stewards believed a suspension rather than a fine should be imposed.
Respondent’s submissions
[10]-Mr Williamson submitted that the suspension should be as short as the Committee believed was appropriate. He said three days was a heavy penalty and indicated he would prefer a fine to a suspension. He asked for a deferment of any suspension until after the Addington meeting next Friday.
[11]-Mr Williamson also reiterated his previous comments on the contours of the passing lane at Winton being at fault with regard to his going over the markers. He said he had had plenty of room at the start of the lane. He commented that when the passing lane was added there had been no remodelling of the track, and markers had simply been added at the top of the straight.
[12]-We deal first with Mr Williamson’s request that the commencement of any suspension be deferred until after Addington on the 21st of this month. The relevant provision is r 1304.
[13]-It states:
(1) Every suspension of a driver or a driver’s licence imposed by a Judicial Committee during any day of a race meeting shall take effect as follows:
(a) on the completion of the driver’s driving engagements on the day the suspension is imposed if at that time the driver has no engagements to drive a horse in a betting race during the next seven days; or
(b) if on the day the suspension is imposed the driver has engagements to drive a horse in a betting race during the next seven days then from the earlier of:
(i) the completion of such engagements within that seven-day period; or
(ii) the completion of that seven-day period.
(2) Every suspension of a driver or a driver’s licence which is imposed by a Judicial Committee otherwise than during any day of a race meeting … shall take effect immediately subject to the same proviso as is referred to in sub-rule (1) of this Rule.
[14]-Mr Williamson has commitments to drive at Addington and has booked flights. We are satisfied, as is the Informant, that he has engagements within a seven-day period as provided in the Rule.
[15]-The key issues in determining penalty are two-fold: first, the starting point in the Penalty Guide; and secondly, the fact that IDEALISM was disqualified.
[16]-We deal with the latter first. Ordinarily, the fact that a Driver’s actions have resulted in a disqualification would be regarded as an aggravating factor, often a significant aggravating factor. However, the circumstances of this case are a little unusual.
[17]-Had Mr Williamson not attempted to take a run to the inside of Mr Beck, it is evident that there would never have been a run for his horse. It would not have finished in a dividend bearing position. Thus, it cannot be said that Mr Williamson’s actions have cost those persons, who placed investments on the horse, a collect. Indeed, had Mr Beck’s horse stopped like Mr Williamson had anticipated, Mr Williamson may have obtained the passing lane run. The horse did not and, as we have previously found, the passing lane run was Mr Beck’s. Eventually, Mr Williamson ran out of room and went over two markers.
[18]-Thus, we do not view the fact that there was a successful protest on the day as an aggravating factor.
[19]-The Informant refers to the 3-day starting point for careless driving where there has been a disqualification or relegation. For the reason stated above we do not believe that is the appropriate starting point in this case and, additionally, we note that the charge was not one of careless driving. We add that Mr Williamson never interfered with Mr Beck’s progress or that of any other horse.
[20]-We accept the RIU’s submission that a suspension rather than a fine is appropriate, as there was the possibility a marker could have been dislodged or the horse take fright, gallop, and interfere with the field. We take a 4-drive starting point as provided in the Penalty Guide. We view the Respondent’s record as neutral. He is a busy South Island driver who drives primarily south of the Waitaki. That he has one interference related breach this season is not an aggravating feature.
[21]-We observe that over the past two weekend meetings in Southland Mr Williamson has had 6 and 7 drives, respectively.
[22]-In these circumstances, while not equating exactly with a 4-drive penalty, we believe a one-day suspension is the appropriate penalty.
[23]-Mr Williamson is suspended from driving at the end of the meeting on 21 May up to and including 22 May, which is the Invercargill Harness Racing Club meeting.
[24]-As the matter was heard on a raceday, there is no order for costs.
Dated at Dunedin this 17th day of May 2021.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Decision Date: 23/04/2021
Publish Date: 23/04/2021
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: 0464fce0bbc0c6a90d3f04c152cf301b
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 23/04/2021
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Adjourned hearing RIU v NP Williamson 23 April 2021 - R 10 (heard 2 May 2021 at Invercargill) - Penalty Decision dated 17 May 2021 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
IN INVERCARGILL
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND-MR NATHAN WILLIAMSON
Licensed Horseman
Respondent
Information: ----A13957
Judicial Committee: ---Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Knowles, Member
Appearing: -Miss R Haley, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondent in person
PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-In our decision of 10 May we found Mr Williamson to be in breach of r 869(7A)(a) and (b) in that on 23 April 2021 at a race meeting conducted by Winton Harness Racing Club in Race 10 he allowed his horse to race inside the markers in the home straight.
[2]-We called for and have received oral and written penalty submissions. A teleconference was held on 14 May.
Informant’s submissions
[3]-Miss Haley stated that Mr Williamson has had 7467 lifetime drives. So far this season he has driven in 394 races and, last season, 399. Mr Williamson is a very experienced and busy driver, especially in the Southern region.
[4]-With respect to previous breaches, Miss Haley said that Mr Williamson was fined $300 under r 869(4) on 13 February last for driving in a manner likely to cause interference. He has had 123 drives since that sanction. Whilst not the same Rule, the RIU submitted it was an interference-based Rule and, due to it being only three months ago, the Stewards viewed the Respondent’s record to be neutral.
[5]-The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees references a starting point for a breach of r 869(7A)(a) as a 2-drive suspension or a $100 fine and a 4-drive suspension or a $200 fine for a breach of r 869(7A)(b).
[6]-The RIU submitted that a suspension was the appropriate form of sanction.
[7]-The RIU submitted that as a consequence of Mr Williamson’s actions, the horse, IDEALISM, was disqualified from 4th placing. This had an adverse effect not only on the Connections but also the betting public who had invested on Mr Williamson's horse. Mr Williamson’s horse was 1/3 in the betting. Where a Driver’s actions cause a relegation or disqualification, the Penalty Guide notes under r 869(3)(b) that a starting point of a 3-meeting suspension should be adopted.
[8]-There were no mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, the Stewards submitted that the appropriate length of penalty was a 3-meeting suspension.
[9]-Miss Haley emphasised in her oral submissions that the Stewards believed a suspension rather than a fine should be imposed.
Respondent’s submissions
[10]-Mr Williamson submitted that the suspension should be as short as the Committee believed was appropriate. He said three days was a heavy penalty and indicated he would prefer a fine to a suspension. He asked for a deferment of any suspension until after the Addington meeting next Friday.
[11]-Mr Williamson also reiterated his previous comments on the contours of the passing lane at Winton being at fault with regard to his going over the markers. He said he had had plenty of room at the start of the lane. He commented that when the passing lane was added there had been no remodelling of the track, and markers had simply been added at the top of the straight.
[12]-We deal first with Mr Williamson’s request that the commencement of any suspension be deferred until after Addington on the 21st of this month. The relevant provision is r 1304.
[13]-It states:
(1) Every suspension of a driver or a driver’s licence imposed by a Judicial Committee during any day of a race meeting shall take effect as follows:
(a) on the completion of the driver’s driving engagements on the day the suspension is imposed if at that time the driver has no engagements to drive a horse in a betting race during the next seven days; or
(b) if on the day the suspension is imposed the driver has engagements to drive a horse in a betting race during the next seven days then from the earlier of:
(i) the completion of such engagements within that seven-day period; or
(ii) the completion of that seven-day period.
(2) Every suspension of a driver or a driver’s licence which is imposed by a Judicial Committee otherwise than during any day of a race meeting … shall take effect immediately subject to the same proviso as is referred to in sub-rule (1) of this Rule.
[14]-Mr Williamson has commitments to drive at Addington and has booked flights. We are satisfied, as is the Informant, that he has engagements within a seven-day period as provided in the Rule.
[15]-The key issues in determining penalty are two-fold: first, the starting point in the Penalty Guide; and secondly, the fact that IDEALISM was disqualified.
[16]-We deal with the latter first. Ordinarily, the fact that a Driver’s actions have resulted in a disqualification would be regarded as an aggravating factor, often a significant aggravating factor. However, the circumstances of this case are a little unusual.
[17]-Had Mr Williamson not attempted to take a run to the inside of Mr Beck, it is evident that there would never have been a run for his horse. It would not have finished in a dividend bearing position. Thus, it cannot be said that Mr Williamson’s actions have cost those persons, who placed investments on the horse, a collect. Indeed, had Mr Beck’s horse stopped like Mr Williamson had anticipated, Mr Williamson may have obtained the passing lane run. The horse did not and, as we have previously found, the passing lane run was Mr Beck’s. Eventually, Mr Williamson ran out of room and went over two markers.
[18]-Thus, we do not view the fact that there was a successful protest on the day as an aggravating factor.
[19]-The Informant refers to the 3-day starting point for careless driving where there has been a disqualification or relegation. For the reason stated above we do not believe that is the appropriate starting point in this case and, additionally, we note that the charge was not one of careless driving. We add that Mr Williamson never interfered with Mr Beck’s progress or that of any other horse.
[20]-We accept the RIU’s submission that a suspension rather than a fine is appropriate, as there was the possibility a marker could have been dislodged or the horse take fright, gallop, and interfere with the field. We take a 4-drive starting point as provided in the Penalty Guide. We view the Respondent’s record as neutral. He is a busy South Island driver who drives primarily south of the Waitaki. That he has one interference related breach this season is not an aggravating feature.
[21]-We observe that over the past two weekend meetings in Southland Mr Williamson has had 6 and 7 drives, respectively.
[22]-In these circumstances, while not equating exactly with a 4-drive penalty, we believe a one-day suspension is the appropriate penalty.
[23]-Mr Williamson is suspended from driving at the end of the meeting on 21 May up to and including 22 May, which is the Invercargill Harness Racing Club meeting.
[24]-As the matter was heard on a raceday, there is no order for costs.
Dated at Dunedin this 17th day of May 2021.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(7A)(a)
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: