Adjourned Hearing RIU v C Johnson – Reserved Decision dated 26 December 2018 – Chair, Mr S Ching
ID: JCA18043
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER of the
New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing
IN THE MATTER of Information No.
A8641
BETWEEN MR J MCLAUGHLIN, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND Mr C JOHNSON, Licensed Class A Rider
Respondent
Date of Hearing: 21 December 2018
Venue: Ashburton Racecourse, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: S Ching (Chair) - G Clapp (Member)
Present: Mr J McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward - Mr J Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward - Ms B Middlewood, for the Respondent
Date of Decision: 26 December 2018
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A8641 alleges that:
On the 15th day of December 2018, Mr Johnson, permitted himself to be engaged at both Manawatu and Southland on 15 December 2018, breaking engagements at Southland, being HEAD OFFICE, THOUGHT THAT, SOW N GO, THE PRECIOUS ONE, PRINCESS BROOK, JOHNNY JONES, ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE, KERANY and LETSBRINGITON.
This was an adjourned hearing from the Otago Racing Clubs meeting on 14 December 2018. Ms Middlewood, represented Mr Johnson at the hearing with Mr McLaughlin and Mr Oatham, having no objection to this.
The Rules
[2] Rule 330 (3)(a) provides as follows:
330(3) A Rider shall not:
(a) Wilfully or without reasonable cause break a riding engagement.
The Plea
[3] Mr Johnson had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he denied the breach of the Rule. Ms Middlewood, for the respondent, confirmed that she understood the Rule Mr Johnson was being charged under. Shortly after the hearing commenced, Ms Middlewood, sought leave to change the plea to admitted, which was granted.
Submissions of Informant
[4] Mr McLaughlin gave evidence that it became apparent early last week, Tuesday 11 December, that Mr Johnson was declared for rides at both Manawatu and Southland on the same date for which rider declaration for both Bureau to discover that Mr Tannahill, Mr Johnson’s agent, had engaged a full book of rides at the Manawatu meeting. Mr Johnson, he said, also had 10 rides in 9 races at Invercargill, where there were 2 disputed riding engagements, as well. Mr McLaughlin contacted Ms Middlewood who assured him that Mr Johnson was driving a float to Dunedin for the races on 14 December and then driving the float down to Invercargill on 15 December, riding at the meeting
On Wednesday morning Ms Middlewood called Mr McLaughlin to inform him of the situation with Mr McLaughlin informing her that this situation needed to be sorted out and not to let it go any further. He gave her until 12.30pm, which she did, which was for Mr Johnson to ride at Manawatu which then left connections, who had declared Mr Johnson at Invercargill, at a very late stage to try and organise riders. Mr McLaughlin said that further investigation revealed that Mr Tannahill had engaged rides for Mr Johnson at the Manawatu meeting from 2 weeks prior up until Monday 10 December. He produced an email from Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Balcombe, showing times of engagement for the meeting noted.
Mr McLaughlin and Mr Oatham then went on to explain that the Rules dictated that there be only 1 agent per rider, whereas for many years Mr Tannahill had been booking Mr Johnson’s North Island rides with Ms Middlewood looking after the South Island rides. They said there was an extreme level of frustration from NZTR which has been ongoing for some time regarding dual riding engagements with Mr Johnson and certainly as well over these circumstances, as it was only at 12.12pm on the Wednesday that it was sorted out after fields closed at 10am. Mr Oatham stated that this situation was completely unsatisfactory with connections left without riders at a late stage with a busy Saturday ahead, with 3 meetings on that date. All trainers who had booked Mr Johnson to ride at Invercargill did so through Ms Middlewood which was the normal procedure for South Island rides.
In summing up Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Johnson, prior to 12.12pm on Wednesday 12 December, had confirmed engagements at both Manawatu and Invercargill on the same day, being 15 December. He said Mr Tannahill had accepted 8 rides at Manawatu and there were multiple engagements at Invercargill with connections of these horses very upset about the situation.
[5] Ms Middlewood explained to the Committee the background to this event. On 3 December she visited the Parsons stable to see what they wanted Mr Johnson to ride at Dunedin on 14 December and Invercargill on 15 December. She also arranged for Mr Johnson to drive the 10-horse truck to Dunedin and then on to Invercargill on the Saturday. Ms Middlewood stated that Mr Johnson had definite engagements with the Parson team including JOHNNY JONES and LETSBRINGITON. She also accepted the ride on THE PRECIOUS ONE, trained by Mrs C Anderton. Ms Middlewood disputed that true engagements were made with some of the other runners Mr Johnson was down to ride.
Ms Middlewood said that they did not realise that Mr Tannahill’s health had deteriorated so badly that he was struggling to do the job. She said Mr Tannahill had taken rides at the meeting at Manawatu for this Saturday 22 December when Mr Johnson was under suspension. Mr Tannahill, illness she said, meant that they had had no communication from him over the past few weeks. Ms Middlewood said she had not been calling him and he had not been in contact with her. He always used to text on Mondays and discuss where he thought Mr Johnson should ride over the next week but had not heard from him recently. Ms Middlewood said she did not think that Mr Johnson would be riding in the North Island that week because there had been no communication from Mr Tannahill.
Mr Johnson, she said, called into see Mr Tannahill on Monday 3 December after riding in the North the previous weekend, and no mention was made at that stage about rides at Manawatu on 15 December.
Ms Middlewood said on Tuesday 11 December at 12.50pm, after nominations had closed, she received a text from Mr Tannahill regarding Gift Of Power at Manawatu. She did not look at that text until after 1pm due to being busy organising Mr Johnson’s rides at Southland. She rang Mr Tannahill back and discovered that Mr Johnson had been booked for rides at the Manawatu meeting. Ms Middlewood said she called Mr McLaughlin immediately, who advised her to call Mr Johnson, to see where he wanted to ride. She spoke to Mr Johnson and with his commitment to the Parsons and driving the float to the Southern meetings, he decided to ride at the Invercargill meeting. Ms Middlewood called back Mr McLaughlin who said he would call the Racing Bureau and remove Mr Johnson from the Manawatu meeting. At that stage Mr Johnson was only declared for one ride at that stage.
Ms Middlewood called Mr Tannahill back and informed him that Mr Johnson wanted to ride at the Southland meeting, with Mr Tannahill saying, “he must go to Manawatu” and hung up on her. She said she was then of the belief that Mr Tannahill would disengage Mr Johnson from his Manawatu rides. Mr Tannahill did not disengage Mr Johnson from his Manawatu rides and the Bureau continued to accept rides for Manawatu, and as a result on Wednesday, when the fields were released, Mr Johnson was down to ride at both meetings.
On Wednesday morning Mr McLaughlin called her and she then called Mr Tannahill again, who said to her that he had not called any North Island trainers to release Mr Johnson, as he had to ride at the Manawatu meeting. Mr Tannahill said if he did not ride at the Manawatu meeting, Mr Johnson would be fined or suspended, as the connections of a particular horse at the meeting, who had been involved in a previous dual riding engagement and who became very agitated in that situation, would not take another similar situation lightly.
Mr Oatham added at this point that he was aware that there were other connections upset about the prospect of Mr Johnson not riding at the Manawatu meeting.
Ms Middlewood stated that this owner “would have had Chris’s head” if he did not complete his engagements at the Manawatu meeting so the decision was made for him to go to the Awapuni meeting.
She said that there was nothing worse than disappointing trainers and connections. Ms Middlewood said that there was a feeling of sadness, anger, nausea, frustration and disappointment. She added that all the South Island trainers were sympathetic, disappointed but not threatening. Her understanding was that the North Island trainers were quite threatening. She said that letting connections down was not something Mr Johnson does lightly, so he drove the float to Dunedin, rode at the races and drove it back that night getting home at 2am Saturday morning before catching a flight to the meeting at Manawatu, early Saturday morning. Ms Middleton stated that Mr Johnson apologised to every affected trainer he saw at Awapuni on the day for the confusion caused.
She stated that Mr Tannahill was organising rides for Mr Johnson at Awapuni without his knowledge, where Mr Johnson did not even ride last year, with herself organising rides at Southland for the same race day. This, she said was a complete lack of communication, a genuine mistake and they did their best to get it resolved prior to rider declaration. Ms Middlewood said that there was one email complaint received in regard to the Southland meeting, which was from the owner of PRINCESS BROCK who was critical of the Bureau allowing a rider to be published as riding at 2 meetings on 1 day. She added that this was human error, which was much like having no starting gates at Oamaru, or cones on the track at Riccarton when a race was run. Ms Middlewood stated that Mr Johnson has been suspended for 18 out of the last 25 race days and finances were strained at this time. She said they were not having Christmas this year as they could not afford it. This was a slap in the face for something that Mr Johnson had nothing to do with. He was completely unaware there was a problem until nomination day.
Penalty Submissions of Informant:
[6] Mr Oatham stated that the Stewards would have preferred to charge Mr Johnson under the dual engagement Rule 330(3)(b) but the wording of that rule relates to a rider being engaged for more than one horse in the same race at the same meeting. This breach was dual engagements but at two meetings on the same day which was the reason Mr Johnson was charged under the sister rule 330(3)(a), breaking engagements.
Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Johnson had a clear record in regard to this particular Rule 330(3)(a) but had a poor record, over numerous years in regard to sister Rule 330(3)(b), the dual engagement rule. Under that Rule Mr Johnson’s record is appalling. He said that under the 14 charges that have been brought under this rule over the past 8 years in New Zealand, Mr Johnson has ownership of 7 of those. Mr McLaughlin said that this was not the first time the Stewards had had to deal with Mr Johnson’s dual engagements and there had been numerous times where they have had to become involved in riding engagement issues in regard to Mr Johnson.
Mr Oatham, in response to a question from the Committee, stated that they did not see the offence being linked to the number of engagements broken, just that there had been a breach and that Mr Johnson had been engaged to ride multiple horses at the Southland meeting. He added that Mr Johnson’s last breach under Rule 330(3)(b) was at the Wairoa meeting in February where a dual engagement was found proved in one race and in light of his recidivist offending over the years, the Committee imposed a fine of $500 in that case.
Mr McLaughlin stated that this breach needs to be dealt with by way of a fine and it needs to send a message to all riders, including Mr Johnson that it cannot happen and is unacceptable. He submitted that a fine in the vicinity of $1000 be considered as penalty in this case.
Submissions of Respondent on Penalty
[7] Ms Middleton said that the message sent would be that you lack compassion if you impose a $1000 on a man who has not earned any money in the last month. She said that Mr Johnson has been suspended for 18 out of the last 25 race days and finances were strained at this time. She said they were out of pocket $22,000, without winning percentages, due to being suspended. She added that their financial situation was grim, and the family were not having Christmas this year. Ms Middlewood said since November she had been on ACC due to an injury, her income was reduced and with Mr Johnson only riding 7 out of the last 25 race days, their financial situation was dire. She also disputed the number of engagements at Southland and said that several were never confirmed.
Discussion was held about a suspension in lieu of a fine due to the current financial situation of Mr Johnson with Ms Middlewood stating that a fine was preferred as penalty.
Ms Middleton added that Mr Tannahill was no longer Mr Johnson’s agent and they were considering a replacement at this time.
Reasons for Penalty
[8] In determining penalty the Committee carefully considered all aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factor in this case is Mr Johnson’s poor record with the sister Rule 330(3)(b), dual engagements, which showed since 2010, 7 breaches, the last being in February this year at Wairoa, where a $500 fine was imposed for a single dual engagement. The Committee on that occasion stated in Reasons for Penalty that: “Mr Johnsons admission has been considered, however whilst his record may appear clear for the previous 12 months, it is accepted he is a recidivist offender of a rule that is not often breached. Mr Johnson’s dual engagement has also caused disruption to Mr Rogerson, the trainer of the horse which no longer could rely on Mr Johnson’s services in Race 4. In light of these aggravating factors, a significant uplift must be applied to act as a deterrent to Mr Johnson, alongside a reminder that he must sort out his processes to ensure that he is not engaged to ride more than 1 horse in a race”
This breach we determined was high range due to the disruption caused to the connections of multiple engagements at the Southland meeting, who could no longer rely on the services of Mr Johnson for their respective horses. In addition, the confusion for the connections of the Manawatu rides leading up to confirmation that Mr Johnson was riding at that meeting as well as the confusion to the Clubs and NZTR.
In mitigation we consider Mr Tannahill’s actions without communication to Mr Johnson or Ms Middlewood in accepting engagements for the Manawatu meeting to be a factor. We also accept that Mr Tannahill’s illness was more than likely an influence in the situation that left Mr Johnson with rides at 2 meetings on 15 December. We, however, must also consider that communication with Mr Tannahill was also a responsibility of Mr Johnson and Ms Middlewood, as we believe they should have been in regular contact with him, being Mr Johnson’s agent, regardless of whether he was suspended or not. Despite Mr Tannahill’s involvement with this breach, Mr Johnson is ultimately responsible for his riding engagements and is therefore subject to any breach and penalty bought about by any dual engagements. Ms Middlewood’s submission that Mr Tannahill had now resigned as agent and imminent appointment of a new agent, will hopefully minimise the chance of any further disputed riding engagements.
After consideration this Committee determined that a fine of $900 was an appropriate starting point in this case, due to the level of the breach, which we assessed as high. The aggravating factor to consider is Mr Johnson’s record with sister Rule 330(3)(b) and his long history in regard to disputed riding engagements. This aggravating factor we determined warranted an uplift in penalty. This we set at $300.
We, however, have some sympathy for Mr Johnson and as a mitigating factor with this situation was Mr Tannahill’s lack of communication which may have been due to his illness. Mr Johnson, we find, still should have made more effort to keep in contact with Mr Tannahill, which may have prevented this situation developing as it did. We also need to take into consideration Mr Johnsons current financial situation, which Ms Middlewood described as dire.
Mr Johnson’s admission of the breach, Mr Tannahill’s contribution to the situation, and the current financial status of Mr Johnson, we determined where strong mitigating factors. We determined that a combined discount for these factors was warranted. This discount we set at $400.
[9] The Committee therefore determined that an $800 fine was an appropriate penalty.
Penalty
[10] Mr Johnson is fined the sum of $800.
S Ching
Chair
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 28/12/2018
Publish Date: 28/12/2018
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: e68a1509695114c698c0bfdaae387f1c
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 28/12/2018
hearing_title: Adjourned Hearing RIU v C Johnson - Reserved Decision dated 26 December 2018 - Chair, Mr S Ching
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER of the
New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing
IN THE MATTER of Information No.
A8641
BETWEEN MR J MCLAUGHLIN, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND Mr C JOHNSON, Licensed Class A Rider
Respondent
Date of Hearing: 21 December 2018
Venue: Ashburton Racecourse, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: S Ching (Chair) - G Clapp (Member)
Present: Mr J McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward - Mr J Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward - Ms B Middlewood, for the Respondent
Date of Decision: 26 December 2018
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A8641 alleges that:
On the 15th day of December 2018, Mr Johnson, permitted himself to be engaged at both Manawatu and Southland on 15 December 2018, breaking engagements at Southland, being HEAD OFFICE, THOUGHT THAT, SOW N GO, THE PRECIOUS ONE, PRINCESS BROOK, JOHNNY JONES, ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE, KERANY and LETSBRINGITON.
This was an adjourned hearing from the Otago Racing Clubs meeting on 14 December 2018. Ms Middlewood, represented Mr Johnson at the hearing with Mr McLaughlin and Mr Oatham, having no objection to this.
The Rules
[2] Rule 330 (3)(a) provides as follows:
330(3) A Rider shall not:
(a) Wilfully or without reasonable cause break a riding engagement.
The Plea
[3] Mr Johnson had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he denied the breach of the Rule. Ms Middlewood, for the respondent, confirmed that she understood the Rule Mr Johnson was being charged under. Shortly after the hearing commenced, Ms Middlewood, sought leave to change the plea to admitted, which was granted.
Submissions of Informant
[4] Mr McLaughlin gave evidence that it became apparent early last week, Tuesday 11 December, that Mr Johnson was declared for rides at both Manawatu and Southland on the same date for which rider declaration for both Bureau to discover that Mr Tannahill, Mr Johnson’s agent, had engaged a full book of rides at the Manawatu meeting. Mr Johnson, he said, also had 10 rides in 9 races at Invercargill, where there were 2 disputed riding engagements, as well. Mr McLaughlin contacted Ms Middlewood who assured him that Mr Johnson was driving a float to Dunedin for the races on 14 December and then driving the float down to Invercargill on 15 December, riding at the meeting
On Wednesday morning Ms Middlewood called Mr McLaughlin to inform him of the situation with Mr McLaughlin informing her that this situation needed to be sorted out and not to let it go any further. He gave her until 12.30pm, which she did, which was for Mr Johnson to ride at Manawatu which then left connections, who had declared Mr Johnson at Invercargill, at a very late stage to try and organise riders. Mr McLaughlin said that further investigation revealed that Mr Tannahill had engaged rides for Mr Johnson at the Manawatu meeting from 2 weeks prior up until Monday 10 December. He produced an email from Stipendiary Steward, Mr D Balcombe, showing times of engagement for the meeting noted.
Mr McLaughlin and Mr Oatham then went on to explain that the Rules dictated that there be only 1 agent per rider, whereas for many years Mr Tannahill had been booking Mr Johnson’s North Island rides with Ms Middlewood looking after the South Island rides. They said there was an extreme level of frustration from NZTR which has been ongoing for some time regarding dual riding engagements with Mr Johnson and certainly as well over these circumstances, as it was only at 12.12pm on the Wednesday that it was sorted out after fields closed at 10am. Mr Oatham stated that this situation was completely unsatisfactory with connections left without riders at a late stage with a busy Saturday ahead, with 3 meetings on that date. All trainers who had booked Mr Johnson to ride at Invercargill did so through Ms Middlewood which was the normal procedure for South Island rides.
In summing up Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Johnson, prior to 12.12pm on Wednesday 12 December, had confirmed engagements at both Manawatu and Invercargill on the same day, being 15 December. He said Mr Tannahill had accepted 8 rides at Manawatu and there were multiple engagements at Invercargill with connections of these horses very upset about the situation.
[5] Ms Middlewood explained to the Committee the background to this event. On 3 December she visited the Parsons stable to see what they wanted Mr Johnson to ride at Dunedin on 14 December and Invercargill on 15 December. She also arranged for Mr Johnson to drive the 10-horse truck to Dunedin and then on to Invercargill on the Saturday. Ms Middlewood stated that Mr Johnson had definite engagements with the Parson team including JOHNNY JONES and LETSBRINGITON. She also accepted the ride on THE PRECIOUS ONE, trained by Mrs C Anderton. Ms Middlewood disputed that true engagements were made with some of the other runners Mr Johnson was down to ride.
Ms Middlewood said that they did not realise that Mr Tannahill’s health had deteriorated so badly that he was struggling to do the job. She said Mr Tannahill had taken rides at the meeting at Manawatu for this Saturday 22 December when Mr Johnson was under suspension. Mr Tannahill, illness she said, meant that they had had no communication from him over the past few weeks. Ms Middlewood said she had not been calling him and he had not been in contact with her. He always used to text on Mondays and discuss where he thought Mr Johnson should ride over the next week but had not heard from him recently. Ms Middlewood said she did not think that Mr Johnson would be riding in the North Island that week because there had been no communication from Mr Tannahill.
Mr Johnson, she said, called into see Mr Tannahill on Monday 3 December after riding in the North the previous weekend, and no mention was made at that stage about rides at Manawatu on 15 December.
Ms Middlewood said on Tuesday 11 December at 12.50pm, after nominations had closed, she received a text from Mr Tannahill regarding Gift Of Power at Manawatu. She did not look at that text until after 1pm due to being busy organising Mr Johnson’s rides at Southland. She rang Mr Tannahill back and discovered that Mr Johnson had been booked for rides at the Manawatu meeting. Ms Middlewood said she called Mr McLaughlin immediately, who advised her to call Mr Johnson, to see where he wanted to ride. She spoke to Mr Johnson and with his commitment to the Parsons and driving the float to the Southern meetings, he decided to ride at the Invercargill meeting. Ms Middlewood called back Mr McLaughlin who said he would call the Racing Bureau and remove Mr Johnson from the Manawatu meeting. At that stage Mr Johnson was only declared for one ride at that stage.
Ms Middlewood called Mr Tannahill back and informed him that Mr Johnson wanted to ride at the Southland meeting, with Mr Tannahill saying, “he must go to Manawatu” and hung up on her. She said she was then of the belief that Mr Tannahill would disengage Mr Johnson from his Manawatu rides. Mr Tannahill did not disengage Mr Johnson from his Manawatu rides and the Bureau continued to accept rides for Manawatu, and as a result on Wednesday, when the fields were released, Mr Johnson was down to ride at both meetings.
On Wednesday morning Mr McLaughlin called her and she then called Mr Tannahill again, who said to her that he had not called any North Island trainers to release Mr Johnson, as he had to ride at the Manawatu meeting. Mr Tannahill said if he did not ride at the Manawatu meeting, Mr Johnson would be fined or suspended, as the connections of a particular horse at the meeting, who had been involved in a previous dual riding engagement and who became very agitated in that situation, would not take another similar situation lightly.
Mr Oatham added at this point that he was aware that there were other connections upset about the prospect of Mr Johnson not riding at the Manawatu meeting.
Ms Middlewood stated that this owner “would have had Chris’s head” if he did not complete his engagements at the Manawatu meeting so the decision was made for him to go to the Awapuni meeting.
She said that there was nothing worse than disappointing trainers and connections. Ms Middlewood said that there was a feeling of sadness, anger, nausea, frustration and disappointment. She added that all the South Island trainers were sympathetic, disappointed but not threatening. Her understanding was that the North Island trainers were quite threatening. She said that letting connections down was not something Mr Johnson does lightly, so he drove the float to Dunedin, rode at the races and drove it back that night getting home at 2am Saturday morning before catching a flight to the meeting at Manawatu, early Saturday morning. Ms Middleton stated that Mr Johnson apologised to every affected trainer he saw at Awapuni on the day for the confusion caused.
She stated that Mr Tannahill was organising rides for Mr Johnson at Awapuni without his knowledge, where Mr Johnson did not even ride last year, with herself organising rides at Southland for the same race day. This, she said was a complete lack of communication, a genuine mistake and they did their best to get it resolved prior to rider declaration. Ms Middlewood said that there was one email complaint received in regard to the Southland meeting, which was from the owner of PRINCESS BROCK who was critical of the Bureau allowing a rider to be published as riding at 2 meetings on 1 day. She added that this was human error, which was much like having no starting gates at Oamaru, or cones on the track at Riccarton when a race was run. Ms Middlewood stated that Mr Johnson has been suspended for 18 out of the last 25 race days and finances were strained at this time. She said they were not having Christmas this year as they could not afford it. This was a slap in the face for something that Mr Johnson had nothing to do with. He was completely unaware there was a problem until nomination day.
Penalty Submissions of Informant:
[6] Mr Oatham stated that the Stewards would have preferred to charge Mr Johnson under the dual engagement Rule 330(3)(b) but the wording of that rule relates to a rider being engaged for more than one horse in the same race at the same meeting. This breach was dual engagements but at two meetings on the same day which was the reason Mr Johnson was charged under the sister rule 330(3)(a), breaking engagements.
Mr McLaughlin stated that Mr Johnson had a clear record in regard to this particular Rule 330(3)(a) but had a poor record, over numerous years in regard to sister Rule 330(3)(b), the dual engagement rule. Under that Rule Mr Johnson’s record is appalling. He said that under the 14 charges that have been brought under this rule over the past 8 years in New Zealand, Mr Johnson has ownership of 7 of those. Mr McLaughlin said that this was not the first time the Stewards had had to deal with Mr Johnson’s dual engagements and there had been numerous times where they have had to become involved in riding engagement issues in regard to Mr Johnson.
Mr Oatham, in response to a question from the Committee, stated that they did not see the offence being linked to the number of engagements broken, just that there had been a breach and that Mr Johnson had been engaged to ride multiple horses at the Southland meeting. He added that Mr Johnson’s last breach under Rule 330(3)(b) was at the Wairoa meeting in February where a dual engagement was found proved in one race and in light of his recidivist offending over the years, the Committee imposed a fine of $500 in that case.
Mr McLaughlin stated that this breach needs to be dealt with by way of a fine and it needs to send a message to all riders, including Mr Johnson that it cannot happen and is unacceptable. He submitted that a fine in the vicinity of $1000 be considered as penalty in this case.
Submissions of Respondent on Penalty
[7] Ms Middleton said that the message sent would be that you lack compassion if you impose a $1000 on a man who has not earned any money in the last month. She said that Mr Johnson has been suspended for 18 out of the last 25 race days and finances were strained at this time. She said they were out of pocket $22,000, without winning percentages, due to being suspended. She added that their financial situation was grim, and the family were not having Christmas this year. Ms Middlewood said since November she had been on ACC due to an injury, her income was reduced and with Mr Johnson only riding 7 out of the last 25 race days, their financial situation was dire. She also disputed the number of engagements at Southland and said that several were never confirmed.
Discussion was held about a suspension in lieu of a fine due to the current financial situation of Mr Johnson with Ms Middlewood stating that a fine was preferred as penalty.
Ms Middleton added that Mr Tannahill was no longer Mr Johnson’s agent and they were considering a replacement at this time.
Reasons for Penalty
[8] In determining penalty the Committee carefully considered all aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factor in this case is Mr Johnson’s poor record with the sister Rule 330(3)(b), dual engagements, which showed since 2010, 7 breaches, the last being in February this year at Wairoa, where a $500 fine was imposed for a single dual engagement. The Committee on that occasion stated in Reasons for Penalty that: “Mr Johnsons admission has been considered, however whilst his record may appear clear for the previous 12 months, it is accepted he is a recidivist offender of a rule that is not often breached. Mr Johnson’s dual engagement has also caused disruption to Mr Rogerson, the trainer of the horse which no longer could rely on Mr Johnson’s services in Race 4. In light of these aggravating factors, a significant uplift must be applied to act as a deterrent to Mr Johnson, alongside a reminder that he must sort out his processes to ensure that he is not engaged to ride more than 1 horse in a race”
This breach we determined was high range due to the disruption caused to the connections of multiple engagements at the Southland meeting, who could no longer rely on the services of Mr Johnson for their respective horses. In addition, the confusion for the connections of the Manawatu rides leading up to confirmation that Mr Johnson was riding at that meeting as well as the confusion to the Clubs and NZTR.
In mitigation we consider Mr Tannahill’s actions without communication to Mr Johnson or Ms Middlewood in accepting engagements for the Manawatu meeting to be a factor. We also accept that Mr Tannahill’s illness was more than likely an influence in the situation that left Mr Johnson with rides at 2 meetings on 15 December. We, however, must also consider that communication with Mr Tannahill was also a responsibility of Mr Johnson and Ms Middlewood, as we believe they should have been in regular contact with him, being Mr Johnson’s agent, regardless of whether he was suspended or not. Despite Mr Tannahill’s involvement with this breach, Mr Johnson is ultimately responsible for his riding engagements and is therefore subject to any breach and penalty bought about by any dual engagements. Ms Middlewood’s submission that Mr Tannahill had now resigned as agent and imminent appointment of a new agent, will hopefully minimise the chance of any further disputed riding engagements.
After consideration this Committee determined that a fine of $900 was an appropriate starting point in this case, due to the level of the breach, which we assessed as high. The aggravating factor to consider is Mr Johnson’s record with sister Rule 330(3)(b) and his long history in regard to disputed riding engagements. This aggravating factor we determined warranted an uplift in penalty. This we set at $300.
We, however, have some sympathy for Mr Johnson and as a mitigating factor with this situation was Mr Tannahill’s lack of communication which may have been due to his illness. Mr Johnson, we find, still should have made more effort to keep in contact with Mr Tannahill, which may have prevented this situation developing as it did. We also need to take into consideration Mr Johnsons current financial situation, which Ms Middlewood described as dire.
Mr Johnson’s admission of the breach, Mr Tannahill’s contribution to the situation, and the current financial status of Mr Johnson, we determined where strong mitigating factors. We determined that a combined discount for these factors was warranted. This discount we set at $400.
[9] The Committee therefore determined that an $800 fine was an appropriate penalty.
Penalty
[10] Mr Johnson is fined the sum of $800.
S Ching
Chair
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
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: