Appeal – CW Johnson
ID: JCA19996
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision: --
On 5 August 2006 Mr Johnson was found to have breached Rule 871(1)(d) in that he rode carelessly on DELBRAE in the Winter Cup at Riccarton.
--
BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
--IN THE MATTER OF New Zealand Rules of Racing
--BETWEEN CW Johnson
--Appellant
--AND New Zealand Thoroughbred
--Racing
--Respondent
--Date of Hearing: 21 August 2006
--Appeal Tribunal: Judge JS Bisphan (Chairman)
--Mr BJ Coombes
--Appearances: Mr CW Johnson (Appellant)
--Mr J Tannahill (Representing Appellant)
--Mr SC Ching (for Respondent)
--Mr JM McLaughlin
--______________________________________________________________
--DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--_______________________________________________________________
--On 5 August 2006 Mr Johnson was found to have breached Rule 871(1)(d) in that he rode carelessly on DELBRAE in the Winter Cup at Riccarton. His horse was relegated from second to third.
----He was suspended from the close of racing on 9 August 2006, to the close of racing on 3 September 2006, said by the JCA to be an effective six meeting days. This is what the JCA said about the suspension ?
--------"We have given consideration to your information that you have given us, from time to time. We are going to suspend, set your period of suspension as commencing from the conclusion of racing next Wednesday the 9th of August, until the conclusion of racing on the 3rd of September. Now that probably constitutes a six-day suspension for you, which we think, is appropriate under the circumstances, having regard to those aggravating features that I mentioned. Alright. Thank you, Mr Johnson."
--Mr Johnson received a stay which allowed him to ride on the 12 August 2006, That stay was granted as a result of special circumstances then prevailing.
----Mr J Tannahill, for Mr C Johnson, after viewing the videotapes conceded careless use, which we consider, was inevitable. He then made submissions as to the extent of the suspension penalty imposed. In essence Mr Tannahill agreed that a six-day suspension was appropriate for a race of this status, but submitted that in effect the suspension was one tantamount to something to the order of 10 to 12 days.
----Mr Ching submitted that the JCA had got it right and that the penalty was not excessive.
----It is clear that Mr Johnson, at the raceday hearing conceded that some of those days were not to be riding days for him, but clearly did not stress the full extent of what his riding engagements might, or could have been. He also had the difficulty of being without his North Island agent.
----Mr Tannahill has in our view established that Mr Johnson may well have ridden at many of the 12 days which he outlined to us starting from Rotorua (which became Matamata) on 10 August 2006, and ending at Ashburton on 3 September 2006.
----In the circumstances, we accept that Mr Tannahill has a point. When the JCA has alluded to a six-day suspension, what in fact has occurred is something more than that. We agree that a six-day suspension is appropriate in all the circumstances and find that the actual extent of the suspension imposed is inappropriate.
----We therefore allow the appeal as to penalty on that basis and now reduce the suspension to expire at the close of racing on 31 August 2006. Mr Johnson cannot ride at Foxton on 31 August 2006, but can ride at Hastings on 2 September 2006. We have done this on the basis of a six riding day suspension but bearing in mind that Mr Johnson would not have ridden at all the 12 meetings referred to by Mr Tannahill and we have taken into account that Mr Johnson was able to ride on the 12 August 2006. The appeal against penalty is allowed to that extent. The appeal against the finding of careless riding is dismissed.
----We make no order as to costs.
------
Judge JS Bisphan BJ Coombes
--Chairman
------
--
Decision Date: 01/01/2001
Publish Date: 01/01/2001
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: 5d03b0a4fa90cdfd3dacc4f26f48b64c
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2001
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Appeal - CW Johnson
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--On 5 August 2006 Mr Johnson was found to have breached Rule 871(1)(d) in that he rode carelessly on DELBRAE in the Winter Cup at Riccarton.
--
BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
--IN THE MATTER OF New Zealand Rules of Racing
--BETWEEN CW Johnson
--Appellant
--AND New Zealand Thoroughbred
--Racing
--Respondent
--Date of Hearing: 21 August 2006
--Appeal Tribunal: Judge JS Bisphan (Chairman)
--Mr BJ Coombes
--Appearances: Mr CW Johnson (Appellant)
--Mr J Tannahill (Representing Appellant)
--Mr SC Ching (for Respondent)
--Mr JM McLaughlin
--______________________________________________________________
--DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--_______________________________________________________________
--On 5 August 2006 Mr Johnson was found to have breached Rule 871(1)(d) in that he rode carelessly on DELBRAE in the Winter Cup at Riccarton. His horse was relegated from second to third.
----He was suspended from the close of racing on 9 August 2006, to the close of racing on 3 September 2006, said by the JCA to be an effective six meeting days. This is what the JCA said about the suspension ?
--------"We have given consideration to your information that you have given us, from time to time. We are going to suspend, set your period of suspension as commencing from the conclusion of racing next Wednesday the 9th of August, until the conclusion of racing on the 3rd of September. Now that probably constitutes a six-day suspension for you, which we think, is appropriate under the circumstances, having regard to those aggravating features that I mentioned. Alright. Thank you, Mr Johnson."
--Mr Johnson received a stay which allowed him to ride on the 12 August 2006, That stay was granted as a result of special circumstances then prevailing.
----Mr J Tannahill, for Mr C Johnson, after viewing the videotapes conceded careless use, which we consider, was inevitable. He then made submissions as to the extent of the suspension penalty imposed. In essence Mr Tannahill agreed that a six-day suspension was appropriate for a race of this status, but submitted that in effect the suspension was one tantamount to something to the order of 10 to 12 days.
----Mr Ching submitted that the JCA had got it right and that the penalty was not excessive.
----It is clear that Mr Johnson, at the raceday hearing conceded that some of those days were not to be riding days for him, but clearly did not stress the full extent of what his riding engagements might, or could have been. He also had the difficulty of being without his North Island agent.
----Mr Tannahill has in our view established that Mr Johnson may well have ridden at many of the 12 days which he outlined to us starting from Rotorua (which became Matamata) on 10 August 2006, and ending at Ashburton on 3 September 2006.
----In the circumstances, we accept that Mr Tannahill has a point. When the JCA has alluded to a six-day suspension, what in fact has occurred is something more than that. We agree that a six-day suspension is appropriate in all the circumstances and find that the actual extent of the suspension imposed is inappropriate.
----We therefore allow the appeal as to penalty on that basis and now reduce the suspension to expire at the close of racing on 31 August 2006. Mr Johnson cannot ride at Foxton on 31 August 2006, but can ride at Hastings on 2 September 2006. We have done this on the basis of a six riding day suspension but bearing in mind that Mr Johnson would not have ridden at all the 12 meetings referred to by Mr Tannahill and we have taken into account that Mr Johnson was able to ride on the 12 August 2006. The appeal against penalty is allowed to that extent. The appeal against the finding of careless riding is dismissed.
----We make no order as to costs.
------
Judge JS Bisphan BJ Coombes
--Chairman
------
--
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 871.1.d
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: