Cambridge HRC – 6 October 2005 –
ID: JCA19352
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision: --
Rules 869(3)(b) and 869(4)
--An information lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead against Mr P Scaife, driver of FLAT CHAT alleging breaches of the above two rules.
| -- Rules 869(3)(b) and 869(4) --An information lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead against Mr P Scaife, driver of FLAT CHAT alleging breaches of the above two rules. The first alleged breach concerned Mr Scaife driving in a manner likely to cause interference to MILLWOOD BETTE driven by Mr P Jeffries, with about 1050m to run. The second alleged breach concerned an incident with about 800m to run when Mr Scaife attempted to move his horse outwards and his horse struck the sulky of the horse immediately in front, causing FLAT CHAT to break. Mr Scaife admitted the breaches and was present at the hearing. Mr Muirhead demonstrated the two incidents by use of the video film. In the first incident Mr Scaife in essence breached the pushout rule with potential interference to MILLWOOD BETTE which was in fact slightly in front of FLAT CHAT. In the second incident, Mr Scaife again attempted to move his horse outwards and was careless in that his horse was improving and simply ran into the sulky of the horse immediately in front of him. --Penalty: --Mr Muirhead said that Mr Scaife had no relevant breaches of the rules recorded against him and that the guilty plea should be acknowledged. He suggested a fine of $250 to cover both breaches. Mr Scaife accepted the versions of the incidents put forward by Mr Muirhead and said he would be happy with a fine. Mr Muirhead said the offending was mid-range on the scale of seriousness. In fixing penalty the following was taken into account ? --
Balancing those matters, a fine of $250 was imposed. |
| -- |
Decision Date: 06/10/2005
Publish Date: 06/10/2005
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: 4295876da103a8fa82c71b77dc9375f4
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 06/10/2005
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Cambridge HRC - 6 October 2005 -
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--Rules 869(3)(b) and 869(4)
--An information lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead against Mr P Scaife, driver of FLAT CHAT alleging breaches of the above two rules.
| -- Rules 869(3)(b) and 869(4) --An information lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead against Mr P Scaife, driver of FLAT CHAT alleging breaches of the above two rules. The first alleged breach concerned Mr Scaife driving in a manner likely to cause interference to MILLWOOD BETTE driven by Mr P Jeffries, with about 1050m to run. The second alleged breach concerned an incident with about 800m to run when Mr Scaife attempted to move his horse outwards and his horse struck the sulky of the horse immediately in front, causing FLAT CHAT to break. Mr Scaife admitted the breaches and was present at the hearing. Mr Muirhead demonstrated the two incidents by use of the video film. In the first incident Mr Scaife in essence breached the pushout rule with potential interference to MILLWOOD BETTE which was in fact slightly in front of FLAT CHAT. In the second incident, Mr Scaife again attempted to move his horse outwards and was careless in that his horse was improving and simply ran into the sulky of the horse immediately in front of him. --Penalty: --Mr Muirhead said that Mr Scaife had no relevant breaches of the rules recorded against him and that the guilty plea should be acknowledged. He suggested a fine of $250 to cover both breaches. Mr Scaife accepted the versions of the incidents put forward by Mr Muirhead and said he would be happy with a fine. Mr Muirhead said the offending was mid-range on the scale of seriousness. In fixing penalty the following was taken into account ? --
Balancing those matters, a fine of $250 was imposed. |
| -- |
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
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: