Appeal D Johnson v RIU 5 January 2017 – Written Decision dated 16 January 2017 – Chair, Mr M McKechnie

hearingid: f93f9d1d75e86745f810bd855dfec160

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 16/01/2017

hearing_title: Appeal D Johnson v RIU 5 January 2017 - Written Decision dated 16 January 2017 - Chair, Mr M McKechnie

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE

JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred

Rules of Racing

DANIELLE JOHNSON, Licensed Jockey

APPELLANT

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

RESPONDENT

Appeals Tribunal: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman & Mr Paul Williams

Present: Ms Danielle Johnson, Licenced Jockey

Mr Kevin Booth, Ms Johnson’s agent

Mr John Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward

HEARD AT TE RAPA RACECOURSE ON THURSDAY 5 JANUARY 2017

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL 5 JANUARY 2017

WRITTEN DECISION ISSUED THIS 16 DAY OF JANUARY 2017

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is an Appeal by the Class A Licensed Rider Ms Danielle Johnson. The Appeal relates to a period of suspension imposed at the Auckland Racing Club meeting on 1 January 2017 following Race 4. Ms Johnson was riding a horse called SHE BRINGS JOY and it was alleged that this horse shifted out when not sufficiently clear of ARCTIC MISS passing the 400m mark which resulted in ARCTIC MISS being checked. Ms Johnson admitted the charge of careless riding. The Raceday Judicial Committee imposed a penalty of 6 days from 4 January 2017 at Otaki – further reference will be made to that later in this decision – until and including 14 January 2017 at Wellington. In addition the Raceday Judicial Committee imposed a fine of $1000. SHE BRINGS JOY won the race.

1.2 Race 4 at Ellerslie on 4 January 2017 was the “Stella Artois Royal Stakes” – a Group 2 race. In the typed decision of the Judicial Committee there is reference in the opening section of the decision to the Race being at Group 2 level but thereafter an inadvertent mistake describing the Race at Group 1 level. This was the subject of some discussion between the Appeals Tribunal and Mr Booth, the advocate for Ms Johnson, and Mr Oatham and it was clarified that the Race was correctly described as Group 2 but thereafter inadvertently described as Group 1.

2 THE POSITION OF MS JOHNSON

2.1 Mr Booth made comprehensive submissions centred primarily around a number of other cases involving jockeys who had been charged with careless riding. Brief reference will now be made to each of the cases to which Mr Booth drew to our attention.

i) Matthew Cameron – This was on 26 December 2016, the race being the “Zabeel Classic”, a Group 1 Race at Ellerslie. Mr Cameron was suspended for 6 days and fined $1000. Mr Booth emphasised that it was a Group 1 Race and that the interference had cost another horse in the race third placing

ii) Michael McNab – This jockey was suspended on 1 January 2017 – the same day as Ms Johnson. This followed Race 8 the “City of Auckland Cup”. The period of suspension was 5 days and no fine was imposed. Mr Oatham, the Chief Stipendiary Steward who made submissions today for the RIU, drew attention to the fact that this interference occurred early in the race.

iii) Alysha Collett – This suspension occurred on 1 January 2016 following the running of the “Dunstan Stayers Final”. A period of suspension of 5 days was imposed together with a fine of $1000. Mr Booth told the Tribunal the original period of suspension that was proposed was 5 days and that at the request of Ms Collett this had been reduced to 4 days and a fine imposed. Reference will be made later to the position in relation to suspension and the relationship to the imposition of fines.

iv) Vincent Colgan – This case also was on 1 January 2016. It was the “Great Northern Guineas” at Ellerslie. Mr Colgan rode the horse RANGIPO. He was initially suspended for 5 days but that was reduced to 4 days and a fine imposed in circumstances which Mr Booth explained were similar to those that had taken place in relation to Ms Collett referred to above.

v) Brendan Hutton – This suspension was imposed on 26 December 2016 following Race 6 the “Cambridge Stud 8 Carat Classic” at Ellerslie. This was a Group 2 Race for a stake of $100,000. Mr Hutton was suspended for 6 days.

2.2 Mr Booth drew attention to Ms Johnson’s very good record. He explained that in the last 12 months she had ridden in Sweden, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand and had no breaches of the careless riding Rule in the current season. Further, he explained she rode extensively and that currently she had the second most number of rides of any jockey in the current season. Mr Booth also drew attention to the significance of the race meeting at Trentham on 14 January 2017 which is a Premier meeting. It was Mr Booth’s position that not sufficient recognition had been given to Ms Johnson’s good record.

2.3 The decision the Raceday Judicial Committee explains that the starting point for careless riding is 5 days. The decision goes on to say that the aggravating factors led to an uplift from 5 to 7 days and then an allowance of 1 day was given for Ms Johnson having admitted the breach and her good riding record. Mr Booth’s position was that the allowance of 1 day for the admission of the breach and particularly with reference to the good riding record was not adequate. He further drew attention to the fact that this was a Group 2 Race whereas Mr Cameron had received a suspension for the same period of 6 days when his careless riding had taken place in a Group 1 Race and that a distinction ought to be made between races at Group 1 and Group 2 level.

3 THE POSITION OF THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

3.1 Mr Oatham, in response to what Mr Booth had said pointed out that the JCA no longer adopted the practice of imposing a fine in lieu of a final day of suspension if that final day of suspension was to take place on a Premier or what has sometimes been described as an Iconic Day. The Tribunal explained to Mr Booth that in October 2016 the Board of the JCA made a ruling that the previous practice of imposing a fine in substitution for the final day of suspension if that should be on a Premier or Iconic Day was no longer to be followed and that henceforth the practice, which had been the subject of some criticism, would no longer be followed.

3.2 Mr Oatham then took the Tribunal through the films of the subject race. He repeated the submission he had made to the Raceday Judicial Committee that this was near high end careless riding. The Tribunal for itself could see that the interference caused to ARCTIC MISS was significant and that the jockey of that horse, Ms Collett, had risen up significantly in the saddle.

3.3 As to the status of the Race, Mr Oatham drew attention to Rule 920(2) which sets out a number of considerations which a Judicial Committee shall have regard to when imposing a penalty. These relevantly include the status of the Race and the stake payable in respect of the Race. Mr Oatham explained that the RIU had on the day not contended for any particular period of suspension but had categorised the riding in question as “near the high end of carelessness”. The decision of the Raceday Judicial Committee also records that Mr Oatham submitted on the day that this was “a reasonably deliberate move”.

3.4 Further, with reference to the days during which the suspension was to be in effect, Mr Oatham pointed to 4 January 2017 at Otaki. On the day in question at Ellerslie on 1 January 2017 declaration for riders at Otaki on 4 January 2017 had already closed and it was subsequent to the hearing that it was realised Ms Johnson had no rides booked for that Otaki meeting. Mr Oatham went on to contend that in those circumstances the inclusion of the 4 January 2017 in the decision of the Committee had in effect resulted in a 5 day rather than a 6 day suspension.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 This was a decision of a very senior and experienced Raceday Judicial Committee. The Committee as will be apparent from what has already been said had other careless riding cases that day. Further, it was the same Committee on 26 December 2016 that had heard the case against Mr Cameron referred to above.

4.2 Careless riding covers a wide range of actions. Sometimes these are inadvertent or momentary. On other occasions they are deliberate. In the Tribunal’s view what happened here was the result of a deliberate decision by Ms Johnson to move her horse further from the rail and it is clear from the films that this caused a significant check to ARCTIC MISS and that this occurred for some 4 or 5 strides. Ms Johnson, who addressed the Tribunal during the course of the hearing, contended that ARCTIC MISS was already beaten and could not have won the race. In considering cases of careless riding it is not a pertinent consideration that the horse interfered with may not have won the race. The interference caused to ARCTIC MISS allowed Ms Johnson’s mount, SHE BRINGS JOY, to get into a position where it would not perhaps otherwise have been and thereby gave it an advantage against other horses in the Race.

4.3 As to the status of the Race, the Raceday Judicial Committee properly recognised that this was a Group 2 Race. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a meaningful distinction when it comes to imposing suspensions between Group 1 and Group 2 races and that the former should involve a greater period of suspension than the latter. The position here is that Ms Johnson took a deliberate decision to improve her horse’s position when that resulted in significant interference to ARCTIC MISS.

4.4 The Raceday Judicial Committee recognised that Ms Johnson has a good record and also that she had admitted the breach. Given the circumstances and what we have seen on the film her admittance of the breach was unsurprising. The Raceday Committee was right in our judgment to categorise the riding as being towards the higher end of carelessness.

4.5 The fact that the final day of the suspension imposed happens to fall on a Premier Day is not of itself a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate period of suspension. It is necessarily the case that throughout the year the racing calendar has a variation in the number of Premier Days and that in the spring and summer these are more frequent than at other times in the year. This is a circumstance that is known to all trainers and jockeys and something which they might properly take account of when they are undertaking their engagements. It is not of itself a reason for shortening a period of suspension that would otherwise be appropriate. In our judgment the Raceday Judicial Committee approached the position correctly and we cannot find any error in their reasoning or the outcome. In those circumstances we must dismiss the Appeal.

5 COSTS

5.1 Mr Oatham advised that no costs were being sought on behalf of the RIU.

5.2 The JCA has been put to significant expense. However, it is not our practice to recover all the costs incurred. There will be no more than a modest contribution towards the costs of the JCA to be made by Ms Johnson in the sum of $300.

DATED this 16 day of January 2017

Murray McKechnie

Chairman

(Signed pursuant to Rule 920(4))

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: