NZ Metro TC – 4 February 2005 – Race 5

Following the running of Race 5, the Searells Chartered Accountants Mobile Pace, Stipendiary Steward Mr S. T. Larkins laid an Information charging Mr M. R. Hay with a breach of Rule 869(4) and Regulation (4) of the Passing Lanes, False Rails and Home Straight Regulations. The Information reads as follows.

"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(4) in that M. R. Hay (Lilly Laingtree) after leading when entering the home turn allowed Lilly Laingtree to shift in denying access to the passing lane for trailing horses."

Rule 869(4) reads as follows.

"No horseman nor any horse shall during any race do anything which

This charge was based on a breach of Regulation (4) of the Passing Lanes,

False Rails and Home Straight Regulations, which provides as follows.

Regulation (8) of the above Regulations provides as follows.

Mr Hay is a Junior Horseman. Mr Larkins advised that Mr Hay had tried

to find someone to attend the hearing with him, but he could not do so. When asked Mr Hay said that he could deal with this hearing on his own. We were satisfied that Mr Hay could speak for himself.

Mr Hay was asked if he understood the charge, and the Rule and Regulation, and he agreed that he did. Mr Hay also confirmed that that he did not admit the charge.

Mr Larkins gave evidence that when Mr Hay led into the straight for the final time he allowed his horse to move into the passing lane. Mr Hay made no attempt to take his horse out of the passing lane and drove his horse hard until just short of the finishing line.

Stipendiary Steward Mr B. Williams illustrated this incident by means of video coverage.

Mr Hay gave evidence that there was always enough room on his inside for a horse to pass. Mr Hay used the video coverage to show that there was room as he contended. Mr Hay also pointed out that his horse did move outwards a short distance from the winning post.

Mr Larkins put it Mr Hay that there was insufficient room for a horse and sulky to pass on his inside for most of the passing lane area. Mr Hay did not agree and asked to be allowed to call Mr N. R. McGrath, the driver of "Withdrawal" (6), to give evidence.

Mr McGrath gave evidence that he was closest to Mr Hay's horse at the end of the race. He said that he was too far away from Mr Hay to be able to use the passing until near the end of the race. At that time he had moved out to try and pass Mr Hay on the outside, but this was mainly due to the way his horse was racing, rather than being unable to use the passing lane.

When questioned by Mr Larkins as to whether there was always enough room to pass Mr Hay on the inside, Mr McGrath said "no".

In summary Mr Larkins said that the Passing Lane rule required Mr Hay to keep a straight line when leading into the straight for the final time. Mr Hay had moved into the passing lane area and had not tried to take his horse out of that area and was therefore guilty of a breach of Rule 869(4).

Mr Hay summed up his defence by saying that there was always room for a horse and sulky to pass him on the inside. He also said that he was trying his best to win the race, but believed he had not breached the passing lane regulation.

We adjourned to consider our decision. On returning to the Enquiry Room we gave the following decision.

"Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied that you allowed your horse to move into the passing lane on entering the straight for the last time. We are also satisfied that you did not attempt to straighten your horse until late in the race. Further we are satisfied that for a considerable distance in the straight there was insufficient room to use the passing lane should horses in behind you wanted to do so. For these reasons this charge is proved."

Penalty: Mr Larkins said that Mr Hay did not have a good driving record. Mr Hay's record was produced and showed convictions for five various breaches of Rule 869 since 19 November 2004. For these breaches Mr Hay had been suspended for a total of 3 days and fined a total of $1250-00.

Mr Larkins said that in view of Mr Hay's poor recent record a fine was not appropriate. It was recommended that Mr Hay be suspended for somewhere in the vicinity of 5 race days, which would be up to and including racing on 18 February 2005.

Mr Hay agreed that the record of his previous conviction referred to was accurate. He made no relevant submissions relating to penalty.

It was also raised with Mr Hay that the Kapiti Coast HRC was holding a race meeting at Otaki on Sunday 6 February 2005. The declaration of drivers did not close until 1-00pm on Saturday 5 February 2005. Mr Hay said that he thought that there was a Junior Drivers race at this meeting, and that he would seek a drive in this race. However it was quickly established that there was no Junior Drivers race at this meeting. Mr Hay agreed that he had no drives arranged for this meeting, but suggested that he could possibly arrange a drive.

We then adjourned to consider our decision on penalty. In coming to our decision we took into account that Mr Hay has a very poor driving record, with five convictions since 19 November 2004. We agree with Mr Larkins that a fine would not be an appropriate penalty in this case. We considered that a suspension for four effective driving days would be an appropriate penalty, and that Mr Hay should be suspended from after the completion of racing on 5 February 2005 until after the completion of racing on 13 February 2005.

We also considered the matter of the Kapiti Coast HRC meeting on 6 February 2005. We do not believe that Mr Hay had any intention of driving at this meeting. As the declaration of drivers did not close until 1-00pm on 5 February 2005 it would have been possible for Mr Hay to have arranged a drive between the time of this hearing and the closing time for that meeting. We emphasise that we did not believe that this was in any way likely and for this reason did not include this meeting as one of the days of the suspension.

We therefore determined to state that the suspension period was five days rather than the four we had settled on. We emphasise that we believe that the suspension period is effectively only four days.

On returning to the Enquiry Room we gave the following decision.

"We have had a look at your record and it is quite poor since the 27 May last year. As the Stipendiary Steward has said, and we agree, that you should be suspended. You will be suspended from the completion of racing of the 5 February, which is tomorrow, to the completion of racing on the 13 February 2005, which is effectively five days. We have given you a concession regarding the 6 February at Kapiti, but accept that you may have been able to obtain a drive at that meeting, so we have included that in the five days, so in that respect you are getting a bit of a concession. We do accept that you could have possibly got a drive there."