Cambridge – Te Awamutu HRC – 6 January 2006 –

hearingid: a75c5ecce2521d875ca1ad4426c5b1c3

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 06/01/2006

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Cambridge - Te Awamutu HRC - 6 January 2006 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Stipendiary Steward Mr J MUIRHEAD laid an information against Horsewoman Miss N CHILCOTT alleging she drove SUZIE SANDS recklessly

Stipendiary Steward Mr J MUIRHEAD laid an information against Horsewoman Miss N CHILCOTT alleging she drove SUZIE SANDS recklessly causing interference to HIGHXCITEMENT (G ROBB), resulting in further interference to AUTOPICK, WESTVILLE ACE, STRAWBERRY FIELDS, DOUBLE DREAM and GRAND TOURER with approximately 700 metres to run in Race 2.

Miss Chilcott denied the breach and was present for the Hearing. At the time of Service Registrar Mr R DEATH advised Miss Chilcott that she could seek adjournment of the hearing to take advice or arrange representation.

Mr Muirhead in opening referred to video tapes of the relevant section of race 2 and indicated the respective positions of the affected horses.

He gave evidence of the actions of Miss Chilcott which he claimed were abrupt unsafe and reckless which caused interference to HIGHXCITEMENT which in turn affected the chances of other runners in the field.

His evidence was supported by the Video evidence which clearly showed an abrupt and sudden movement outwards by Miss Chilcott after the 700 metre mark, the breaking of HIGHXCITEMENT and the resultant outcome as the horse moved towards the rail into the path of the following field.

Cross examined by Miss Chilcott Mr Muirhead conceded that the manoeuvre was permitted in that she was entitled to push out if there was room and the movement could be made safely in accordance with rule 869(7)

He further conceded although Mr ROBB was trailing Mr McKendry and improving outside Miss Chilcott there was perhaps a split second advantage where she could move and Mr Robb would have to give way.

Her movement however had been so abrupt and sudden that Mr Robb had no time to respond and in his opinion the abrupt and deliberate movement was reckless and unsafe.

Mr Muirhead called Mr ROBB driver of Highxcitement who gave evidence of following Mr McKendry travelling three wide with cover at about 600 to 700 metres to run when Miss Chilcott in his inside suddenly came out and knocked him over.

He said that it wasn?t a normal pushout in that the movement was very sharp and that she came out too quickly and he had no time to react. Even if she had moved out more cautiously he would have resisted as he was entitled to maintain his line as he was improving

He described the movement of Miss Chilcott as being a highly unusual manoeuvre and having been taken him completely by surprise.

Cross examined by Miss Chilcott, Mr Robb agreed that his horse had galloped before but denied it was delicate. He explained that a vet examination had detected soreness and five joints had been injected. Following on the horse raced perfectly.

Mr Robb on re-examination by Mr Muirhead recounted how Highxcitement had broken during racing on the 17^th November 2005 but had raced very soundly on the 24^th December. The trainer had remedied the situation and during today's race the horse had felt good with no indication of breaking.

He said the only reason his horse broke was because of the manner in which Miss Chilcott came out.

Miss Chilcott gave evidence and referred to video footage to show there was sufficient room for her to come out. She claimed that if there had not been sufficient room her horse would have broken up. She said there had been sufficient room but that Mr Robb had to concede but didn?t move at all

The move had happened quite quickly and Mr Robb's horse had broken and run in galloping violently. In most situations the horse would have galloped and run out and it was submitted by Miss Chilcott that Highxcitements actions had majorly affected the following horses.

Cross examined by Mr Muirhead, Miss Chilcott agreed that Mr Robb had been improving but said there was a small window of opportunity and she had moved out very abruptly because she didn?t have much time.

She did not consider her sudden movement was unsafe although she had to move very abruptly

In summing up Mr Muirhead submitted the evidence clearly supported the Charge of Reckless driving. In his opinion the sudden abrupt outwards movement which gave Mr Robb no time to respond regardless of whether or not a gap existed for that instant, displayed a reckless attitude.

The behaviour was the worst example of reckless driving that he had seen in his experience

In response Miss Chilcott submitted that she did not believe the actions to be reckless. She had the obligation to try and put her horse in a better position.

There had been room although she may have moved out too quickly.

Mr Robb hadn?t reacted even though she had come out a little quickly. The resultant interference on other runners in the field was because of the behaviour of Highxcitement which had made her actions appear worse than in fact they had been.

After listening to the evidence, viewing video footage and considering submissions by both parties I am satisfied the charge has been established.

I am satisfied that Miss Chilcotts actions in suddenly and abruptly pushing out Mr Robb were reckless in that although there may have been an instant were opportunity existed and such a tactic permitted, the speed and abruptness required to complete the manoeuvre meant that the movement in itself could not be made safely and was therefore inherently reckless.

The movement was made without proper consideration of its likely and foreseeable impact and with a reckless disregard to the safety of Mr Robb and his horse.

The ongoing resultant effect on the other horses taken out of the race through the inwards movement of Highxcitement after breaking up was the unfortunate consequence of an event triggered by the reckless manner of the driving by Miss Chilcott.

PENALTY

Submissions on penalty were called

Mr Muirhead stated the normal range of penalties for reckless driving called for suspension for a period of 6 days to six weeks and asked for suspension for a period of 8 Race days. He said that Miss Chilcott had a good driving record with no applicable charges this season of 115 drives.

He submitted the penalty had to be mindful of the impact her actions had on a large number of runners in the race.

Miss Chilcott said her driving record was very good considering the frequency of her driving engagements. This was a very busy time of the year for her when she could expect 5 to 8 drives a night. The suspension of her licence for 6 to 8 nights would mean a significant loss of income and her preference was for a fine rather than suspension

Taking into account the submissions made, the seriousness of the charge, the driving record of Miss Chilcott, and the effect on other participants in the race who had their chances extinguished though this breach Miss CHILCOTT's driving licence is suspended for a period of six racing days commencing after the final race on 6^th January 2006 and concluding after the final race on the 29^th January 2006.

The penalty must be seen as deterrent and clearly more serious than careless driving and a fine is therefore not appropriate

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.7

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: