Banks Peninsula TC – 31 January 2005 – Race 2

Following the running of Race 2, Dakins Group Fillies & Mares Mobile Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S T Larkins, against Licensed Open Horseman, Mr J F Curtin, alleging that Mr Curtin, as the driver of AMELIA STREET in the Race, drove carelessly with approximately 1400 metres to run when shifting wider on the track causing interference to ALLSTAR K T (D D McCormick).

Mr Curtin did not admit the breach.

Mr Larkins called Mr McCormick to give evidence. Mr McCormick stated that he had been trapped out 3-wide since the start. He said that, going down the back, he was still moving forward and had just got up alongside Mr Curtin ? just alongside his wheel - when Mr Curtin moved out. The front legs of Mr McCormick's horse touched the wheel of Mr Curtin's horse and it broke for several strides. He stated that if Mr Curtin had come out half a metre sooner it would have been all right. Mr Curtin's move was a fraction too late. Mr McCormick confirmed that there was contact made.

Mr Curtin put it to Mr McCormick that no contact was made but Mr McCormick said that there was and that his horse broke when it touched the wheel of Mr Curtin's horse.

Mr McCormick called Mr N G McIntyre, Stipendiary Steward, to show the incident on video replays. Mr Larkins first submitted that, when Mr Curtin first turned his horse's head outwards, the

horse responded "reasonably quickly" which was visible on the replay, he said. He submitted that the video would also show that the nose of Mr McCormick's horse was in line with Mr Curtin's skull cap which demonstrated that ALLSTAR K T had paced up outside the wheel of AMELIA STREET. Mr Larkins submitted that the video showed the head of Mr Curtin's horse turned out, that the horse reacted and Mr McCormick was carried wider and broke.

Mr Curtin stated that there was no contact that he was aware of by the front legs of Mr McCormick's horse to his sulky wheel. He submitted that Mr McCormick was out wider when he, Mr Curtin, did come out and that is why he believed that no contact was made. Mr Curtin said that a driver usually was aware when his wheel was struck.

Mr Curtin called horseman, Mr R D Holmes, to give evidence. Mr Holmes was driving LITTLE FLIRT and was following Mr Curtin. Mr Holmes stated that he felt that no contact had taken place when Mr Curtin moved out and that Mr McCormick had lost a little ground and his horse broke free of interference.

Summing up, Mr Larkins referred to the conflicting evidence as to whether there had been contact. He did not concede that there had been no contact but, even if there was no contact, he submitted the shift by Mr Curtin had resulted in interference to Mr McCormick's horse causing it to break. He submitted that it was clear that Mr McCormick had been racing in a 3-wide position and after regaining its gait was still not back in the 3-wide line. Mr Larkins submitted that it was clear that there had been interference caused to ALLSTAR K T caused by the movement of Mr Curtin.

Following a deliberation, the Committee delivered the following oral decision:

"I have considered the evidence of both parties in this matter. The problem that I face is that there is, clearly, conflicting evidence. On the one hand, Mr McCormick was adamant that there was contact between his horse's front legs and the sulky wheel of Mr Curtin as Mr Curtin moved from the 2-wide to the 3-wide line. On the other hand, Mr Curtin was equally adamant that there was no such contact and this was supported by Mr Holmes who was directly behind Mr Curtin when Mr Curtin pulled out.

The video evidence was a little unclear because of angle and distance but it does support the contention that the nose of Mr McCormick's horse was in line with Mr Curtin's sulky wheel. However, the video evidence in this case is certainly not decisive.

To find the charge of careless driving against Mr Curtin proved, I have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that he caused interference to Mr McCormick ? the "balance of probabilities" means that I have to be more satisfied than not.

I find, in this case, the conflicting evidence difficult to resolve. The effect of that conflicting evidence is that it has raised sufficient doubt in my mind to the extent that I cannot be satisfied

that on that matter. I did give careful consideration to the closing submissions of Mr Larkins and, while I accept that there may have been some merit in them, they were not sufficient to satisfy the doubt that I have and I have to give Mr Curtin the benefit of that doubt.

Accordingly, the charge of careless driving against Mr Curtin is dismissed."