NZ Metro TC – 27 May 2010 – R 2

hearingid: dc93ab9e3407c143e67031eb132c16ce

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 27/05/2010

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 27 May 2010 - R 2

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr N R Escott – Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  Mr K J Lancaster – Open Horseman

Information No:  68997

Meeting:  New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club

Date:  27 May 2010

Venue:  Addington Raceway

Race:  2 – Farrington’s Tavern Pace

Rule No:  869(3)(a)

Judicial Committee:  J M Phelan, Chairman – J Millar, Committee Member 

Plea:  Not Admitted

CHARGE:

Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott filed an Information against Open Horseman Mr K. J. Lancaster alleging a breach of Rule 869(3)(a).  It was alleged that Mr Lancaster, the driver of “Sunglasses N Cigars” (9), which started in Race 2, the Farrington’s Tavern Pace, drove incompetently.

The charge reads as follows.

“I the abovenamed Informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a        breach of Rule 869(3)(a) in that K. J. Lancaster (Sunglasses N Cigars) drove      incompetently when allowing his drive to strike the back of the sulky of Tommy Golightly (S. P. Walkinshaw) after approx 300m.”

Rule 869(3)(a) reads as follows.

“(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-

(a)   incompetently..”

FACTS:

Mr Escott opened his case by stating that “incompetently” meant “failing to display the necessary ability to perform to the required standard”.

Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault used video coverage to show this incident, and he pointed out the two horses involved. It was shown that Mr Lancaster’s horse was last after breaking from its gait earlier in the race.  When it regained its proper gait it was still last.  During this time Mr Walkinshaw’s horse, “Tommy Golightly” (6) also went into a break, and it was restrained back through the field, ending up second to last, but shortly after that he had been able to bring it to a standstill.  Mr Lancaster had failed to take evasive action and a collision occurred.

Mr Renault said that there was approximately 20 to 25 metres between the two horses by the time Mr Walkinshaw brought his horse to a standstill.  He also said that an alert driver would know what was going on in front of him, and that in this case Mr Lancaster could have gone inside or outside “Tommy Golightly”.  It was also stated that Mr Walkinshaw could see Mr Lancaster’s horse coming, but could do nothing to get out of the way.

Mr Escott gave evidence that the videos were self explanatory, and that any wide awake horseman should have taken the necessary steps to avoid the collision.

Mr Lancaster gave evidence that he did see “Tommy Golightly” and that it “stopped dead” in front of him.  He also showed where that horse had run out two sulky widths just prior to it coming to a stop.  Mr Lancaster agreed that he was still some distance back when “Tommy Golightly” came to a stop and that at that time he was still 10 to 15 metres behind it.  He said that he was trying to get around it.  Mr Lancaster also agreed that he would have had room to go inside or outside “Tommy Golightly”.

Mr Escott asked Mr Lancaster if he had seen “Tommy Golightly” stop, and he agreed that he had.  He was also asked when he had taken remedial action and agreed he would have been about 10 metres away by this time.  Mr Escott put it to Mr Lancaster that he had taken too little action too late.

SUBMISSIONS:

In summary Mr Escott made submissions that the Stipendiary Stewards case was self explanatory, and that this was an incompetent drive by Mr Lancaster.  He said that Mr Lancaster tried to take evasive action far too late.

In summary Mr Lancaster said he saw “Tommy Golightly” galloping and at that time it was on the rail, and he naturally thought it would stay on the rail and he would steer around it.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.

REASONS:

After reviewing the video coverage and the evidence we were satisfied that this was an uncomplicated situation in that there were only two horses in the vicinity.  It was clear that Mr Walkinshaw had brought his horse to a standstill, about two sulky widths off the marker line, when Mr Lancaster was still about 30 metres away.  Mr Lancaster had plenty of time to steer his horse around Mr Walkinshaw’s horse, but ran into the back of it.  Mr Lancaster’s defence that his horse was lugging in and was on one rein does not explain his lack of action to try and avoid the collision.

DECISION:

On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision with more detailed reasons would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having seen the video coverage, and having heard the evidence, we are satisfied that after about 300 metres Mr Lancaster (“Sunglasses N Cigars”) ran into the back of “Tommy Golightly” driven by Mr S. Walkinshaw.

Mr Escott used video coverage to illustrate the incident, and he gave evidence that Mr Lancaster drove incompetently as a competent driver would have avoided the collision.

Mr Lancaster said that he had seen “Tommy Golightly” well before the collision, but it “stopped dead” in front of him, and although he tried to avoid the collision, he was unable to do so because his horse was lugging in.

For the record “Incompetently” has a dictionary meaning [Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9^th Ed.] of –

            “Not qualified or able to perform a particular task or function.  Showing a lack of skill.”

We are satisfied that Mr Lancaster had every opportunity to avoid this collision, and that he was unable to do so because he drove incompetently, and we find the charge proved.”

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY:

In relation to penalty Mr Escott advised that Mr Lancaster had no previous relevant convictions. This was Mr Lancaster’s first race day drive this season, and he had driven very little on race days since 2000. This breach of the Rules was regarded very seriously, and he recommended that Mr Lancaster’s Horseman’s Licence be suspended for a period of three to six months.  Mr Escott said he placed the incompetency at the higher end of the scale.

Mr Lancaster said that he had been driving at the trials, but had no other submissions to make with regard to penalty.

After hearing the submissions on penalty we adjourned to consider our decision. 

REASONS:

We looked at the Sentencing Guide which recommends a starting point of a 6 month suspension in cases where the incompetent driving has resulted in an accident or injury. 

We also looked at penalties imposed for previous breaches of this Rule.  Incompetent driving covers a wide range of offences, but we could find no previous cases that were similar to the present one.

We were satisfied that this was a serious breach which warranted a lengthy suspension.  We decided that a suspension of 6 months was appropriate in this case.

PENALTY:

On returning to the Enquiry Room we gave the following oral decision on penalty.

“There are not a lot of precedents for incompetent driving.  We have found two but they are really not that comparable with your situation Mr Lancaster.  In one case the driver was suspended for 2½ months, but there was no accident involved in that.  In this case there has been an accident and our Penalty Guide has set a starting point in a case of incompetent driving causing an accident or injury as a suspension for 6 months.  We are well aware that you are not driving a lot, and in the next 6 months you might not have any drives.  Also you are able to drive in workouts and trials.

In this case we consider that, having heard the submissions, that an appropriate penalty is a suspension of your Open Horseman’s Licence for 6 months.  That will commence on 28 May 2010, and will end on 27 November 2010, both dates inclusive.”

J M Phelan                               J Millar

CHAIR                                     Committee Member

68997

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869(3)(a)

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: