NZ Metro TC – 5 August 2010 – R 6

hearingid: 7bb815566fc532da95b0e78f7a6e4d53

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 05/08/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 5 August 2010 - R 6

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant: S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward

Defendant: G W Hunt, Licensed Public Trainer

Information No: 68797

Meeting: New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club

Date: 5 August 2010

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Race: 6

Rule No: 864 (2) (d)

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman – J Millar, Committee Member

Plea: Not Admitted

FACTS:

Following the running of Race 6, Speights Gold Medal Ale Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, against Licensed Public Trainer, Mr G W Hunt, alleging a breach of Rule 864 (2) (d) in that Mr Hunt, as the trainer of NOTHINGSWEETABOUTME in the race, “failed to affix the pull down blinds so as not to malfunction”.

Mr Hunt was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he did not admit the breach.

Rule 864 provides as follows:

(2)     Every horseman, owner, trainer and assistant thereof of a horse shall with  regard to that horse ensure that:-

(d)  that all gear is correctly applied and/or affixed so as not to malfunction or come adrift.

SUBMISSION(S):

Mr Escott, Chief Stipendiary Steward, showed a video of the final 200 metres of the race. He pointed out, and it could be clearly seen, that the near-side pull down blind on NOTHINGSWEETABOUTME had come down but that the off-side blind was still in position. Shortly after passing the winning post, both blinds had come down. Mr Escott said that Mr Hunt had not reported the malfunction to the Stewards. Mr Hunt said that he was unaware that he was required to report a malfunction. The horse, on this occasion, had not been in contention, Mr Hunt said.

Mr Hunt confirmed that he had kept attempting to activate the blinds and could not understand why they had malfunctioned. He had applied them as he always did, he said. He produced the gear in question and demonstrated that they both “pulled down fine”. The off-side blind had come down after the post, Mr Hunt confirmed.

REASONS:

The facts of this matter were clear and were not in dispute. Mr Hunt freely acknowledged that the pull down blinds had malfunctioned when the off-side blind failed to activate, despite his efforts. This was confirmed by the video replay.

Mr Hunt submitted that he had taken the usual care in fitting the pull down blinds, which he claimed were in good order and condition, and that he had made all reasonable efforts to fully activate them. That does not amount to a defence to the charge.

A charge under Rule 864 (2) (d) is one of strict liability – in other words, the Stewards do not have to prove any fault on Mr Hunt’s part.

Being satisfied that the pull down blinds on NOTHINGSWEETABOUTME had clearly malfunctioned when Mr Hunt had attempted to activate them, the Committee found the charge to be proved.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

SUBMISSION(S) ON PENALTY:

Mr Escott submitted that a fine of $250 was appropriate. Mr Escott submitted that Mr Hunt was not entitled to any discount for admitting the breach. Mr Hunt had a clear record under the Rule.

Mr Hunt submitted that a fine of that amount was “a bit steep”.

REASONS:

Mr Escott had submitted that a fine of $250 was appropriate. The Committee, in the course of deliberating on penalty, referred to the database of penalties by way of fines imposed for breaches of the Rule. The Committee found that there were a large number of cases in that category. It appeared that the common fine for a breach of the Rule which was admitted, and even in the odd case where it was not admitted, was $100. The Committee assumed that the fines of $100 for admitted breaches incorporated a discount for the admission.

In the present case, Mr Hunt was not entitled to any such discount.

It was also relevant, in the Committee’s view, that Mr Hunt had not reported the malfunction to the Stipendiary Stewards post-race.

Taking all factors into account, including Mr Hunt’s previous good record and fines for previous breaches of the Rule, the Committee determined that the appropriate fine in this case was $150.

PENALTY:

Mr Hunt was fined the sum of $150.

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 864(2)(d)

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid: 2415f386d62c741cb30aa924c3609d50

race_expapproval:

racecancelled: 0

race_noreport: 0

race_emailed1: 0

race_emailed2: 0

race_title: R 6

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid: d06aa9db4ab79389f10967026461d05c

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport: 0

waitingforpublication: 0

meet_emailed1: 0

meet_emailed2: 0

meetdate: 05/08/2010

meet_title: NZ Metro TC - 5 August 2010

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation: nz-metro-tc

meet_racingtype: harness-racing

meet_chair: tom

meet_pm1: tom

meet_pm2: tom

name: NZ Metro TC