Rangiora HRC – 10 February 2005 – Race 7

Following the running of Race 7, Kiwi Express Pace, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N R Escott, against Licensed Horseman, Mr L W Kerslake, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Kerslake, as the driver of OTAGO?S HIGHLANDER in the Race, in the run to the finish shifted wider on the track contacting HART OF GOLD (S P Renault) causing that horse to break.

Mr Kerslake did not admit the breach.

Mr Renault said that, with approximately 50-75 metres to run, he was between STORMY LOCH (R B Keats) and OTAGO?S HIGHLANDER. He said that his horse was only "battling" at that stage but the horse inside, OTAGO?S HIGHLANDER, pushed right out, took his line and pushed him on to STORMY LOCH on his outside.

Mr S T Larkins, Stipendiary Steward, showed the incident on video replays. He showed the head of OTAGO?S HIGHLANDER turned out and the horse shift out and make contact with HART OF GOLD. Mr Renault confirmed that there was contact. Mr Larkins alleged that Mr Renault maintained a straight course at all times but Mr Kerslake pulled the right rein and continued to use the whip thereafter. As a result, contact was made with the near foreleg of HART OF GOLD. Mr Larkins alleged that the shift had come solely from the inside and there was no shift from the runner outside of HART OF GOLD. Mr Larkins said that he had an unobstructed view of the race, from the patrol box at the top of the straight, and it was his clear observation that, in the run to the finish, Mr Kerslake had angled for a run to the outside of the runner in front of him and, as a result, had caused interference to Mr Renault's horse.

The Committee observed from the video replays that HART OF GOLD broke as a result of the incident.

Mr Kerslake explained that his reason for defending the charge of careless driving was that his horse was following DRAG RACER (R T May) and was travelling well enough to be on that horse's back. Half way down the straight, he said, the horse started to "surge". It had received two strikes with the whip and started to get "quite vigorous". He submitted that, if the horse had not had its head turned to go around the wheel of DRAG RACER, it may have struck the wheel of that horse and caused "quite a mess". It was careful driving and not careless driving, he submitted. He alleged that there was enough room for his horse to get past DRAG RACER when it got its head around. He admitted that it did subsequently take the line of HART OF GOLD.

Mr Escott contended that it was not the fault of Mr Kerslake's horse but that, the replay showed, Mr Kerslake drove the horse into that position.

Mr Larkins pointed out that there was a duty on a horseman shifting ground not to cause interference.

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

"Mr Kerslake has been charged with careless driving in that he shifted out in the run home contacting HART OF GOLD driven by S P Renault causing that horse to break.

Mr Kerslake has defended the charge and his defence was based on, as he claimed, the fact that his horse had had a couple of cracks with the whip, as he put it, and that as a consequence it had "surged" and he had to steer it outwards to avoid running into the back of DRAG RACER driven by R T May.

I was shown video replays by Mr Larkins, Stipendiary Steward. These clearly showed to me that Mr Kerslake was looking for racing room for OTAGO?S HIGHLANDER and, in doing so, he shifted ground outwards when not sufficiently clear of HART OF GOLD making contact with that runner and causing it to break.

It is the duty of horsemen to drive with care so as to avoid such situations. It is no defence that Mr Kerslake had to steer outwards to avoid running into the back of the horse ahead. A reasonable prudent driver would not have put himself in that situation and Mr Kerslake fell short of the standard required of a reasonable prudent driver on this occasion. The standard of the reasonable prudent is the standard by which I determine whether a driver has been careless.

So, I am satisfied that the charge of careless driving against Mr Kerslake has been proved."

Mr Escott informed the Committee that Mr Kerslake had no breaches on his record. He said that he had been driving for "some years" but, at the present time, his opportunities are limited. Mr Kerslake, when asked by Mr Escott, agreed that he did not drive on a regular basis. Mr Escott suggested that there were two options open to the Committee ? a fine in the vicinity of $350-400 or a 4-5 meeting suspension.

Mr Kerslake said that he would prefer a suspension to a fine. Mr Kerslake stated that he has only two horses likely to be racing in the next few weeks but that he has a number of 2-year-olds that he would be unable to drive at trials if he were to be suspended.

Mr Kerslake stated that he was not driving at the Ashburton meeting on Saturday, 12 February.

In determining penalty, the Committee took into account the above submissions of the parties. It also took into account that the breach was not a minor one as far as careless driving is concerned and that the circumstances warranted a suspension rather than a fine.

On the basis of Mr Escott's recommendation, Mr Kerslake's horseman's licence was suspended up to and including 3 March 2005, effectively 4 driving days.