Levin RC – 20 December 2007 –
ID: JCA20135
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision:
Ms Hercock appeared before the committee charged with a breach of Rule 871(4) where it was alleged that she ‘did not seek permission from the Stipendiary Stewards to leave the jockey room area’.
Ms Hercock appeared before the committee charged with a breach of Rule 871(4) where it was alleged that she ‘did not seek permission from the Stipendiary Stewards to leave the jockey room area’.
--Ms Hercock admitted the breach of the rule.
--Prior to hearing submissions on penalty Mr Goodwin outlined the circumstances leading to the charge being laid.
--These, in essence, were that Ms Hercock was seen in the area behind the main stand where a fair was being conducted and as this area was well removed from the birdcage area she was in breach of the provisions of Rule 871(1)(4)
--Mr Goodwin, when making his penalty submission, stated that the matter was best dealt with by way of a modest fine.
--Ms Hercock, when addressing the committee, contended that she did not know of the existence of the rule and as this was the first time anyone had been charged then a warning was an appropriate penalty.
--PENALTY
--The committee when determining this matter is mindful that this is the first occasion any rider has been charged with a breach of Rule 871(1)(4) and accordingly no precedent exists regarding penalty.
--With regard to this we are of the view that a monetary penalty is appropriate, and when considering the quantum to be imposed we believe that this should fall toward the lower end.
--We do not accept Ms Hercocks contention that the matter should be dealt with by way of a warning, as a lack of knowledge of the existence of the rule does not in anyway lesson or repudiate the liability that rested with her.
--We also acknowledge that Ms Hercock is the first rider to be charged with breaching the provisions of Rule 871(1)(4) and as such some consideration has been given to this when assessing penalty, nevertheless the rule as been in existence for some six weeks and its provisions have been well gazetted.
--Ms Hercock had a clear obligation to ask permission to leave the birdcage area and she has not done so.
--Therefore after considering all matters we find that the appropriate penalty in this case is a fine of $100.00
----
--
--
RLH Neal,
--Chairman.
Decision Date: 20/12/2007
Publish Date: 20/12/2007
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: 3da853566e690bf31be6f5b71d05e59c
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 20/12/2007
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Levin RC - 20 December 2007 -
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Ms Hercock appeared before the committee charged with a breach of Rule 871(4) where it was alleged that she ‘did not seek permission from the Stipendiary Stewards to leave the jockey room area’.
Ms Hercock appeared before the committee charged with a breach of Rule 871(4) where it was alleged that she ‘did not seek permission from the Stipendiary Stewards to leave the jockey room area’.
--Ms Hercock admitted the breach of the rule.
--Prior to hearing submissions on penalty Mr Goodwin outlined the circumstances leading to the charge being laid.
--These, in essence, were that Ms Hercock was seen in the area behind the main stand where a fair was being conducted and as this area was well removed from the birdcage area she was in breach of the provisions of Rule 871(1)(4)
--Mr Goodwin, when making his penalty submission, stated that the matter was best dealt with by way of a modest fine.
--Ms Hercock, when addressing the committee, contended that she did not know of the existence of the rule and as this was the first time anyone had been charged then a warning was an appropriate penalty.
--PENALTY
--The committee when determining this matter is mindful that this is the first occasion any rider has been charged with a breach of Rule 871(1)(4) and accordingly no precedent exists regarding penalty.
--With regard to this we are of the view that a monetary penalty is appropriate, and when considering the quantum to be imposed we believe that this should fall toward the lower end.
--We do not accept Ms Hercocks contention that the matter should be dealt with by way of a warning, as a lack of knowledge of the existence of the rule does not in anyway lesson or repudiate the liability that rested with her.
--We also acknowledge that Ms Hercock is the first rider to be charged with breaching the provisions of Rule 871(1)(4) and as such some consideration has been given to this when assessing penalty, nevertheless the rule as been in existence for some six weeks and its provisions have been well gazetted.
--Ms Hercock had a clear obligation to ask permission to leave the birdcage area and she has not done so.
--Therefore after considering all matters we find that the appropriate penalty in this case is a fine of $100.00
----
--
--
RLH Neal,
--Chairman.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 871.4, 871.1.4
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: