Manawatu HRC 15 March 2012 – R 4 (heard 18 March 2012 at Palmerston North)
ID: JCA23000
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Meet Title:
Manawatu HRC - 15 March 2012
Meet Chair:
TUtikere
Meet Committee Member 1:
PWilliams
Race Date:
2012/03/15
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward - (15 March 2012), Mr T Taumanu, Stipendiary Steward – (18 March 2012)
Defendant: Mr D Butcher, Open Horseman (Driver of “Freeman Lamont”)
Information No: A5611
Meeting: Manawatu Harness Racing Club
Date: 15 March 2012 – Heard on 18 March 2012
Venue: Palmerston North
Race: 4
Rule No: 869 (3)(b)
Judicial Committee: Paul Williams, Chairman – Tangi Utikere, Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: Mr R Neal, Stipendiary Steward; Mr T Mitchell, Open Horseman (Driver of “Strawbs in Peru”)
FACTS
20 minutes after the running of race 9, the last race on the first night of the Manawatu HRC’s March meeting, information A5611 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Wallis under Rule 869 (3)(b). The information stated that during the running of race 4 “D J Butcher , driver of “Freeman Lamont” drove carelessly when he tightened “Strawbs in Peru” over several pylons with approximately 1700m to run resulting in “Strawbs in Peru” breaking and lose (sic) its position in the race”.
Rule 869(3)(b) states:- “No horseman in any race shall drive….carelessly”
Mr Butcher signed the information saying he did not admit the breach. He confirmed this at the start of the hearing and also that he understood the Rule.
At the beginning of the hearing Mr Butcher asked if the hearing could be adjourned as he and a number of other northern drivers were about to drive back home. The Stipendiary Stewards indicated they had no objections to an adjournment being granted. After questioning Mr Butcher and Mr Mitchell about their transport arrangements to the second day of the meeting on Sunday 18 March it was agreed the hearing of the information would be adjourned until 11.00am on that day. Mr Wallis indicated that he was not scheduled to work at the second day of the meeting and it was confirmed Mr Taumanu would be the Informant at the adjourned hearing.
At the beginning of the adjourned hearing into Information A5611 the Informant’s name was amended from “S Wallis” to “T Taumanu”. The details of the alleged breach of Rule 869(3)(b) were read out and Mr Taumanu also read the Rule. Mr Butcher confirmed he understood the details of the alleged breach and the Rule it was laid under. Mr Butcher also confirmed again that he did not admit the breach of the Rule.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr Taumanu asked Mr Neal to show the films of the incident. Mr Neal said the incident that led to the filing of the Information occurred with two rounds of the track to go. At this point in the race Mr P Ferguson was leading the race driving “This Time Dylan” with Mr Butcher driving “Freeman Lamont” to his outside and slightly back and Mr T Mitchell driving “Strawbs in Peru” in the trail approximately ¾ of a length behind Mr Ferguson. Using the head, side and rear view films Mr Neal said Mr Ferguson moved out slightly and then as the horses commenced running round the bend Mr Ferguson moved back to the running line. Mr Butcher also moved out to be on Mr Ferguson’s back and then followed Mr Ferguson in. At the same time he said Mr Mitchell has established himself inside the wheel of Mr Butcher. It was the Stipendiary Steward’s view that, because Mr Mitchell was positioned on the inside of Mr Butcher’s wheel, Mr Butcher should not have followed Mr Ferguson down to the running line. Because he did so Mr Mitchell was forced inside over the markers and his horse galloped.
Mr Neal said at the time of the incident Mr Mitchell had a broken offside front hopple loop but he pointed out that Mr Mitchell had travelled approximately 600m with the broken gear, his horse was pacing freely and being driven forward and not being eased and the broken gear was not responsible for his horse breaking. He also said that despite having broken gear after breaking on the turn the horse regained its gait and carried on racing for a further 600m before the broken gear caused the horse to be retired from the race.
Mr Neal replayed the different views of the incident several times and emphasized at the point when Mr Butcher followed Mr Ferguson down to the running line Mr Mitchell was clearly established inside of Mr Butcher and therefore Mr Butcher should have pulled back and allowed Mr Mitchell to progress into the space that he was entitled to. Mr Ferguson was entitled to move in as he was leading the race but Mr Butcher should have been more aware of Mr Mitchell’s position and relieved the pressure on him.
Mr Taumanu concluded by saying that from the start of the race to the time he broke Mr Mitchell had been trailing Mr Ferguson and he was entitled to be in that position. He also re-iterated that the broken gear on Mr Mitchell’s horse did not contribute to his horse breaking – it was the actions of Mr Butcher moving down to the running line and pushing Mr Mitchell over the markers that sent “Straws in Peru” into a gallop.
Mr Mitchell was then called as a witness for the Stipendiary Stewards. To questioning from Mr Taumanu he said his horse broke after being squeezed by the horse on his outside. He said he was trailing Mr Ferguson and was about ¾ of a length behind him. Mr Ferguson moved out going past the winning post and Mr Butcher moved out with him and then as Mr Ferguson moved back to the running line Mr Butcher followed him down and squeezed him forcing him over the markers. He didn’t think there was any contact but was entitled to be where he was. Mr Mitchell said he was aware his horse had broken gear but that was not responsible for his horse breaking.
Mr Butcher asked Mr Mitchell when he first realised he had a broken hopple and Mr Mitchell said it was as he entered the front straight some 400m after the start. He also said he was “pacing good” up to the point of hitting the markers and also did not call out to Mr Butcher as he came across.
To a question from the Committee Mr Taumanu said if the hopple had not been broken Mr Mitchell’s horse would still have galloped as it had contacted the markers.
To a question from the Committee Mr Mitchell said that, despite having broken gear, his horse was pacing freely up to time he was pushed over the markers.
Mr Butcher asked Mr Taumanu to confirm that when the pair of them and Stipendiary Steward Mr Wallis viewed the film of the incident on the first night he (Mr Butcher) made a comment that there was room for him to move over and Mr Wallis had agreed with him. Mr Taumanu said he could not recall that being said. The Chairman pointed out to Mr Butcher that Mr Wallis was not present to confirm or deny what was said and if Mr Butcher had the film played and stopped where he thought there was room him to move over, the Committee would make their own judgment as to whether they agreed or not.
Mr Butcher then said he had 3 points to make in relation to the incident. Firstly, he said when he followed Mr Ferguson over, Mr Mitchell was not up beside him – his horses’ head was behind his seat and so the gap in front of Mr Mitchell was open to him to move into. He said Mr Mitchell was not holding his ground. He then said that he thought Mr Mitchell, in occupying the trailing position behind Mr Ferguson, was in breach of the Passing Lane Regulations (Clause 3) as he was in the Passing Lane at a time other than in the home straight for the last time. He said Mr Mitchell had moved into the Passing Lane when he was looking down to check the state of the broken gear her had noticed earlier in the race. His final point was that drivers are required to trail with the head behind the sulky in front of them and, as he came across correctly trailing Mr Ferguson, Mr Mitchell continued to move forward in the Passing Lane but was not up inside of him at any point. He confirmed that Mr Mitchell did not call out at any time but agreed that it was not a requirement for drivers to call out.
In summary Mr Taumanu said the back straight film clearly shows Mr Mitchell was inside Mr Butcher’s wheel when Mr Butcher came across on the back of Mr Ferguson and all he had to do was continue on in a straight line for a few strides and Mr Mitchell would not have suffered any interference. He said Mr Mitchell’s evidence was very clear and that the only reason his horse galloped was because he was pushed over the markers by the inwards movement of Mr Butcher.
In summary Mr Butcher said the back straight film did not show a true picture and the side on film clearly showed that Mr Mitchell was not inside him when he moved across. He said the rules required Mr Mitchell to keep up with Mr Ferguson and because he hadn’t done so he (Mr Butcher) was entitled to move across like he did. Mr Butcher said because Mr Mitchell continued to drive his horse forward inside the Passing Lane he gained an advantage he was not entitled to and because he continued to drive his horse forward when the gap was not there he was responsible for his own horse breaking.
To a final question from the Committee Mr Butcher confirmed that from the moment he got onto Mr Ferguson’s back he was entitled to go to the marker lines as some 40m prior to that when he looked to his inside Mr Mitchell was not on his inside. He said when he looked back again as he got closer to the marker lines he was surprised to see Mr Mitchell on his inside as he (Mr Butcher) was now in the trail.
DECISION
The Committee has reviewed all the available films of the incident and listened carefully to the extensive submissions of both parties.
The Stipendiary Steward’s case is that Mr Butcher, when following Mr Ferguson down to running line at approximately the 1700m mark, took up space that Mr Mitchell was entitled to and forced Mr Mitchell over the markers which caused his horse to gallop for a small distance before retaining its proper gait. The Stipendiary Stewards also do not believe the broken gear on Mr Mitchell’s horse played any part in the horse breaking during the incident.
Mr Butcher has submitted that Mr Mitchell was never up on his inside and so when he followed Mr Fergusson down to the running line he was entitled to do so and take up the space between Mr Ferguson and Mr Mitchell. Mr Butcher also contends that Mr Mitchell was in breach of Clause 3 of the Passing Lane Regulations in being in the position he was trailing Mr Ferguson.
The Committee believes the back straight film of the incident appears to show Mr Mitchell further up on the inside Mr Butcher than perhaps he was although the other views of the incident do show Mr Mitchell to have his horse’s head to the inside of Mr Butcher’s wheel. The Committee does not accept Mr Mitchell was in breach the Passing Lane Regulations. The head on film shows Mr Mitchell did not enter the Passing Lane coming down the home straight and did not deviate at all down the straight from the line he had rounding the bend at the top of the straight for the first time.
Mr Butcher said when Mr Ferguson briefly moved out at the winning post he trailed him correctly by have his horse’s head on the back of Mr Ferguson. He said Mr Mitchell had not been trailing Mr Ferguson correctly as there was a significant gap between the two of them which he was entitled to move into when Mr Ferguson moved back to running line rounding the bend out of the straight. The Committee believes Mr Mitchell was entitled to be where he was and entitled to take up the space in front him. It is not a requirement that a horse trailing the leader has to be on the leaders back at all times. The Committee’s interpretation of Rule 869(5) is that when trailing, a horse’s head has to be behind and, by implication, not alongside or in front of the seat of the sulky being trailed. The head of Mr Mitchell’s horse was behind Mr Ferguson’s seat – the fact that there was ¾ of length between the head and Mr Ferguson’s back is irrelevant and not a breach of the Rule.
The Committee has noted that under questioning Mr Butcher said he was surprised to see Mr Mitchell on his inside as he made his move across because when he started his move he did not believe Mr Mitchell was on his inside. The Committee believes that when Mr Butcher realised Mr Mitchell was further up on his inside than he thought, if he had stopped moving in Mr Mitchell would not have been forced over the markers and galloped.
Finally and significantly the Committee finds the evidence of Mr Mitchell to be compelling as he was clear the only reason he broke going out of the straight was because he was squeezed from the inside by Mr Butcher. The Committee has noted that after breaking Mr Mitchell’s horse did regain its proper gait and accepts that the broken front hopple loop played no part in the horse breaking.
Taking all the above into account the Committee finds the charged proved.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Mr Taumanu did not have access to Mr Butcher’s driving record and so the listing of the 3 previous breaches of this rule incurred by Mr Butcher in the last 12 months as recorded in the JCA penalty listing was read out and confirmed as correct by Mr Butcher. Mr Taumanu referred to the JCA Penalty Guide which says the starting point for a breach of this Rule is a $400 fine or a suspension for 8 drives but made no specific submission on what the penalty should be. To a question from the Committee he said he rated the severity of the incident in the low/mid category.
Mr Butcher asked that the penalty be as small as possible and that the fine be no more than $200.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Butcher is one of our leading drivers who drives throughout the country during the season. The Committee has taken into account his good driving record and that this is his first breach of the careless driving Rule since early December 2011. The Committee has reviewed all the penalties for similar breaches over the past 12 months and notes the majority of the penalties are fines of $300 or less. The Committee believes the degree of severity is at the lower end of the “low/mid” categorization. Nevertheless, Mr Butcher’s actions did cause Mr Mitchell’s horse break and the Committee believes on this occasion a fine is an appropriate penalty.
PENALTY
Mr Butcher is fined $200.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: dbcfe806cc092039e66632a47036b0b8
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 15/03/2012
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Manawatu HRC 15 March 2012 - R 4 (heard 18 March 2012 at Palmerston North)
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION
Informant: Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward - (15 March 2012), Mr T Taumanu, Stipendiary Steward – (18 March 2012)
Defendant: Mr D Butcher, Open Horseman (Driver of “Freeman Lamont”)
Information No: A5611
Meeting: Manawatu Harness Racing Club
Date: 15 March 2012 – Heard on 18 March 2012
Venue: Palmerston North
Race: 4
Rule No: 869 (3)(b)
Judicial Committee: Paul Williams, Chairman – Tangi Utikere, Committee Member
Plea: Not Admitted
Also Present: Mr R Neal, Stipendiary Steward; Mr T Mitchell, Open Horseman (Driver of “Strawbs in Peru”)
FACTS
20 minutes after the running of race 9, the last race on the first night of the Manawatu HRC’s March meeting, information A5611 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Wallis under Rule 869 (3)(b). The information stated that during the running of race 4 “D J Butcher , driver of “Freeman Lamont” drove carelessly when he tightened “Strawbs in Peru” over several pylons with approximately 1700m to run resulting in “Strawbs in Peru” breaking and lose (sic) its position in the race”.
Rule 869(3)(b) states:- “No horseman in any race shall drive….carelessly”
Mr Butcher signed the information saying he did not admit the breach. He confirmed this at the start of the hearing and also that he understood the Rule.
At the beginning of the hearing Mr Butcher asked if the hearing could be adjourned as he and a number of other northern drivers were about to drive back home. The Stipendiary Stewards indicated they had no objections to an adjournment being granted. After questioning Mr Butcher and Mr Mitchell about their transport arrangements to the second day of the meeting on Sunday 18 March it was agreed the hearing of the information would be adjourned until 11.00am on that day. Mr Wallis indicated that he was not scheduled to work at the second day of the meeting and it was confirmed Mr Taumanu would be the Informant at the adjourned hearing.
At the beginning of the adjourned hearing into Information A5611 the Informant’s name was amended from “S Wallis” to “T Taumanu”. The details of the alleged breach of Rule 869(3)(b) were read out and Mr Taumanu also read the Rule. Mr Butcher confirmed he understood the details of the alleged breach and the Rule it was laid under. Mr Butcher also confirmed again that he did not admit the breach of the Rule.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr Taumanu asked Mr Neal to show the films of the incident. Mr Neal said the incident that led to the filing of the Information occurred with two rounds of the track to go. At this point in the race Mr P Ferguson was leading the race driving “This Time Dylan” with Mr Butcher driving “Freeman Lamont” to his outside and slightly back and Mr T Mitchell driving “Strawbs in Peru” in the trail approximately ¾ of a length behind Mr Ferguson. Using the head, side and rear view films Mr Neal said Mr Ferguson moved out slightly and then as the horses commenced running round the bend Mr Ferguson moved back to the running line. Mr Butcher also moved out to be on Mr Ferguson’s back and then followed Mr Ferguson in. At the same time he said Mr Mitchell has established himself inside the wheel of Mr Butcher. It was the Stipendiary Steward’s view that, because Mr Mitchell was positioned on the inside of Mr Butcher’s wheel, Mr Butcher should not have followed Mr Ferguson down to the running line. Because he did so Mr Mitchell was forced inside over the markers and his horse galloped.
Mr Neal said at the time of the incident Mr Mitchell had a broken offside front hopple loop but he pointed out that Mr Mitchell had travelled approximately 600m with the broken gear, his horse was pacing freely and being driven forward and not being eased and the broken gear was not responsible for his horse breaking. He also said that despite having broken gear after breaking on the turn the horse regained its gait and carried on racing for a further 600m before the broken gear caused the horse to be retired from the race.
Mr Neal replayed the different views of the incident several times and emphasized at the point when Mr Butcher followed Mr Ferguson down to the running line Mr Mitchell was clearly established inside of Mr Butcher and therefore Mr Butcher should have pulled back and allowed Mr Mitchell to progress into the space that he was entitled to. Mr Ferguson was entitled to move in as he was leading the race but Mr Butcher should have been more aware of Mr Mitchell’s position and relieved the pressure on him.
Mr Taumanu concluded by saying that from the start of the race to the time he broke Mr Mitchell had been trailing Mr Ferguson and he was entitled to be in that position. He also re-iterated that the broken gear on Mr Mitchell’s horse did not contribute to his horse breaking – it was the actions of Mr Butcher moving down to the running line and pushing Mr Mitchell over the markers that sent “Straws in Peru” into a gallop.
Mr Mitchell was then called as a witness for the Stipendiary Stewards. To questioning from Mr Taumanu he said his horse broke after being squeezed by the horse on his outside. He said he was trailing Mr Ferguson and was about ¾ of a length behind him. Mr Ferguson moved out going past the winning post and Mr Butcher moved out with him and then as Mr Ferguson moved back to the running line Mr Butcher followed him down and squeezed him forcing him over the markers. He didn’t think there was any contact but was entitled to be where he was. Mr Mitchell said he was aware his horse had broken gear but that was not responsible for his horse breaking.
Mr Butcher asked Mr Mitchell when he first realised he had a broken hopple and Mr Mitchell said it was as he entered the front straight some 400m after the start. He also said he was “pacing good” up to the point of hitting the markers and also did not call out to Mr Butcher as he came across.
To a question from the Committee Mr Taumanu said if the hopple had not been broken Mr Mitchell’s horse would still have galloped as it had contacted the markers.
To a question from the Committee Mr Mitchell said that, despite having broken gear, his horse was pacing freely up to time he was pushed over the markers.
Mr Butcher asked Mr Taumanu to confirm that when the pair of them and Stipendiary Steward Mr Wallis viewed the film of the incident on the first night he (Mr Butcher) made a comment that there was room for him to move over and Mr Wallis had agreed with him. Mr Taumanu said he could not recall that being said. The Chairman pointed out to Mr Butcher that Mr Wallis was not present to confirm or deny what was said and if Mr Butcher had the film played and stopped where he thought there was room him to move over, the Committee would make their own judgment as to whether they agreed or not.
Mr Butcher then said he had 3 points to make in relation to the incident. Firstly, he said when he followed Mr Ferguson over, Mr Mitchell was not up beside him – his horses’ head was behind his seat and so the gap in front of Mr Mitchell was open to him to move into. He said Mr Mitchell was not holding his ground. He then said that he thought Mr Mitchell, in occupying the trailing position behind Mr Ferguson, was in breach of the Passing Lane Regulations (Clause 3) as he was in the Passing Lane at a time other than in the home straight for the last time. He said Mr Mitchell had moved into the Passing Lane when he was looking down to check the state of the broken gear her had noticed earlier in the race. His final point was that drivers are required to trail with the head behind the sulky in front of them and, as he came across correctly trailing Mr Ferguson, Mr Mitchell continued to move forward in the Passing Lane but was not up inside of him at any point. He confirmed that Mr Mitchell did not call out at any time but agreed that it was not a requirement for drivers to call out.
In summary Mr Taumanu said the back straight film clearly shows Mr Mitchell was inside Mr Butcher’s wheel when Mr Butcher came across on the back of Mr Ferguson and all he had to do was continue on in a straight line for a few strides and Mr Mitchell would not have suffered any interference. He said Mr Mitchell’s evidence was very clear and that the only reason his horse galloped was because he was pushed over the markers by the inwards movement of Mr Butcher.
In summary Mr Butcher said the back straight film did not show a true picture and the side on film clearly showed that Mr Mitchell was not inside him when he moved across. He said the rules required Mr Mitchell to keep up with Mr Ferguson and because he hadn’t done so he (Mr Butcher) was entitled to move across like he did. Mr Butcher said because Mr Mitchell continued to drive his horse forward inside the Passing Lane he gained an advantage he was not entitled to and because he continued to drive his horse forward when the gap was not there he was responsible for his own horse breaking.
To a final question from the Committee Mr Butcher confirmed that from the moment he got onto Mr Ferguson’s back he was entitled to go to the marker lines as some 40m prior to that when he looked to his inside Mr Mitchell was not on his inside. He said when he looked back again as he got closer to the marker lines he was surprised to see Mr Mitchell on his inside as he (Mr Butcher) was now in the trail.
DECISION
The Committee has reviewed all the available films of the incident and listened carefully to the extensive submissions of both parties.
The Stipendiary Steward’s case is that Mr Butcher, when following Mr Ferguson down to running line at approximately the 1700m mark, took up space that Mr Mitchell was entitled to and forced Mr Mitchell over the markers which caused his horse to gallop for a small distance before retaining its proper gait. The Stipendiary Stewards also do not believe the broken gear on Mr Mitchell’s horse played any part in the horse breaking during the incident.
Mr Butcher has submitted that Mr Mitchell was never up on his inside and so when he followed Mr Fergusson down to the running line he was entitled to do so and take up the space between Mr Ferguson and Mr Mitchell. Mr Butcher also contends that Mr Mitchell was in breach of Clause 3 of the Passing Lane Regulations in being in the position he was trailing Mr Ferguson.
The Committee believes the back straight film of the incident appears to show Mr Mitchell further up on the inside Mr Butcher than perhaps he was although the other views of the incident do show Mr Mitchell to have his horse’s head to the inside of Mr Butcher’s wheel. The Committee does not accept Mr Mitchell was in breach the Passing Lane Regulations. The head on film shows Mr Mitchell did not enter the Passing Lane coming down the home straight and did not deviate at all down the straight from the line he had rounding the bend at the top of the straight for the first time.
Mr Butcher said when Mr Ferguson briefly moved out at the winning post he trailed him correctly by have his horse’s head on the back of Mr Ferguson. He said Mr Mitchell had not been trailing Mr Ferguson correctly as there was a significant gap between the two of them which he was entitled to move into when Mr Ferguson moved back to running line rounding the bend out of the straight. The Committee believes Mr Mitchell was entitled to be where he was and entitled to take up the space in front him. It is not a requirement that a horse trailing the leader has to be on the leaders back at all times. The Committee’s interpretation of Rule 869(5) is that when trailing, a horse’s head has to be behind and, by implication, not alongside or in front of the seat of the sulky being trailed. The head of Mr Mitchell’s horse was behind Mr Ferguson’s seat – the fact that there was ¾ of length between the head and Mr Ferguson’s back is irrelevant and not a breach of the Rule.
The Committee has noted that under questioning Mr Butcher said he was surprised to see Mr Mitchell on his inside as he made his move across because when he started his move he did not believe Mr Mitchell was on his inside. The Committee believes that when Mr Butcher realised Mr Mitchell was further up on his inside than he thought, if he had stopped moving in Mr Mitchell would not have been forced over the markers and galloped.
Finally and significantly the Committee finds the evidence of Mr Mitchell to be compelling as he was clear the only reason he broke going out of the straight was because he was squeezed from the inside by Mr Butcher. The Committee has noted that after breaking Mr Mitchell’s horse did regain its proper gait and accepts that the broken front hopple loop played no part in the horse breaking.
Taking all the above into account the Committee finds the charged proved.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Mr Taumanu did not have access to Mr Butcher’s driving record and so the listing of the 3 previous breaches of this rule incurred by Mr Butcher in the last 12 months as recorded in the JCA penalty listing was read out and confirmed as correct by Mr Butcher. Mr Taumanu referred to the JCA Penalty Guide which says the starting point for a breach of this Rule is a $400 fine or a suspension for 8 drives but made no specific submission on what the penalty should be. To a question from the Committee he said he rated the severity of the incident in the low/mid category.
Mr Butcher asked that the penalty be as small as possible and that the fine be no more than $200.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Butcher is one of our leading drivers who drives throughout the country during the season. The Committee has taken into account his good driving record and that this is his first breach of the careless driving Rule since early December 2011. The Committee has reviewed all the penalties for similar breaches over the past 12 months and notes the majority of the penalties are fines of $300 or less. The Committee believes the degree of severity is at the lower end of the “low/mid” categorization. Nevertheless, Mr Butcher’s actions did cause Mr Mitchell’s horse break and the Committee believes on this occasion a fine is an appropriate penalty.
PENALTY
Mr Butcher is fined $200.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: e7ec05aa36630a3d407a5b63acb25e05
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ab79bff7fa2b283b7bf5f37653a4505b
meet_expapproval: approved
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 1
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 15/03/2012
meet_title: Manawatu HRC - 15 March 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km: [{"Comment": [], "MemberRole": "Chair ", "MemberID": "TUtikere", "Member": "", "OtherExpenses": "0", "KMs": "0", "Total": "0.0", "kmprice": 0.0, "Approved": "on"}]
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: manawatu-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: TUtikere
meet_pm1: PWilliams
meet_pm2: none
name: Manawatu HRC