Appeal – CW Johnson Jan 2006

hearingid: 0b84cdb47e90667646cde76f95619268

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - CW Johnson Jan 2006

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Mr Johnston admitted the breach of careless riding. The appeal is against the severity of the penalty imposed.

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing

BETWEEN  -  CW Johnson,  Jockey, Appellant

AND - NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING - Respondent

DECISION ON APPEAL

Mr Johnston admitted the breach of careless riding. The appeal is against the severity of the penalty imposed.

The judicial committee was confronted with a confirmed breach of careless riding (Rule 871(1)(d)) which, with the exception of Mr Johnson's breach on the 11 January 2006 which we believe was on the West Coast of the South Island, would normally carry a term of suspension.

We understand that Judicial Committees in the South Island impose fines rather than suspensions because of the dearth of senior riders available. That is not the situation in the North Island. Nor, as an admitted breach when a fine had been imposed only 12 days previously for a similar offence, is it appropriate that a further fine be imposed.

The Judicial Committee properly exercised its discretion in imposing a suspension rather than a fine. The breach occurred on a super feature raceday at a major three-day carnival, and the committee clearly had that in mind in imposing the term of suspension.

On the question of deferment, we accept Mr McCutcheon's explanation of the circumstances of the Grylls' WAITOKI DREAM decision produced by Mr McKenzie and that the policy since then is that no deferments should be granted after raceday acceptances have closed. Applications for deferment beyond that would be opposed by the Stipendiary Stewards.

We accept that there were extenuating circumstances as ably put to us by Mr McKenzie, and to a lesser extent apparent to us from the film, in particular the possible inward movement of Mr Johnson's mount being caused by the pressure brought to bear on it as Mr Bullard pushed his mount through a gap that momentarily presented itself, the fact that Mr Johnson was carrying the reins in his right hand and whip in the left hand militating against a conscious pulling of his horse across Mr Bullard's line, sufficient for us to interfere in the decision.

It was apparent from the video that Mr Johnson pulled on the right rein in an endeavour to straighten his mount, but this was after contact had been made and was therefore too late. We do not, however, accept that there was any interference on the part of the inside horses claimed to have moved out anymore than the normal movement of horses straightening after turning for home.

For these reasons, and because the period of suspension encompassed a premier day we now vary the term of suspension to the intent that it will now be up to and including Tuesday the 31st of January 2006.

The filing fee is to be refunded.

Costs will lie where they fall.

DATED AT Wellington this 27th day of January 2006

Judge Norman Smith - Chairman

G G Hall - Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

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: