Appeal J Riddell v RIU – Decision of Appeals Tribunal dated 12 September 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: dea760414a241a753fcb2a1ea1b14c0c

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 12/09/2016

hearing_title: Appeal J Riddell v RIU - Decision of Appeals Tribunal dated 12 September 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall

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

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing

BETWEEN JONATHAN RIDDELL

Licensed Jockey

Appellant

AND RIU

Respondent

Appeals Tribunal: G Hall (Chairman)

R McKenzie

Appearing: the Appellant in person

Mr B Wall, assisting the Appellant

Mr J Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward for the Respondent

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL

[1] Mr Riddell has appealed against the penalty of four days’ suspension imposed by the race day Judicial Committee on 27 August 2016 at the Hawke’s Bay RI Club race meeting at Hastings after he had been found to be in breach of r 638(1)(d) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing (careless riding) in Race 6.

[2] The Judicial Committee after expressly stating that it had considered the appellant’s recent riding history and had adopted the approach that had been taken since the Parkes’ appeal, stated it was “not satisfied that Mr Riddell had a recent riding history throughout the Northern Region apart from Taupo which has been included in the penalty.” Penalty was in these terms:

Mr Riddell is suspended from the close of racing on Saturday September 3rd, up to and including racing on Friday September 16th. The days included are:

8/9/16 - Taranaki
10/9/16 - Manawatu
15/9/16 - Wanganui
16/9/16 – Taupo.

[3] A telephone conference was held on 30 August where the appellant confirmed that the four day suspension itself was not being questioned, just the determination of the days, in that some northern North Island meetings had not been taken into account when the suspension was imposed.

[4] The parties agreed that the matter could be heard on the papers.

[5] The RIU has produced the appellant’s riding record for last season and for the current season to date, and the parties have filed written submissions. At the Tribunal’s request, the RIU also produced the riding record for last season and for the current season to date for the two jockeys referred to in the appellant’s submissions: viz Ms Andrew and Ms Myers.

Appellant’s case

[6] The essence of Mr Riddell’s appeal is captured by the opening stanza of his submission:

The reason for the grounds for the appeal relates to the consistency of penalty applied amongst jockeys and it is a worry to us jockeys where this consistency starts and ends.

[7] Mr Riddell correctly recognised that the decision in RIU v Parkes is now the starting point for a Judicial Committee when determining which riding days are encompassed by a suspension.

[8] Mr Riddell was concerned that this decision had not been available to him on the day. He believed if had been, he would have been able to stipulate a better case for the days considered for his suspension. As it was, it was acknowledged on the day that he had ridden at Taupo on 19 August last.

[9] With respect to upcoming race days, Mr Riddell stated:

Currently I lead the New Zealand Premiership and as such I am finding even more trainers trying to secure my services to ride up North. With the drastic reduction in Central Districts race days with nine (10%) removed from our Calendar I will be looking to take on more opportunities to ride up North this season where gaps now appear in the Central Districts calendar.

[10] Mr Riddell drew the Tribunal’s attention to the penalty imposed by the Judicial Committee on the day in respect of Ms Andrew. She also received four days. Her suspension was up to and including Wanganui on 15 September. The days are not stipulated in the decision but he believed a northern race day had been included, despite the fact the Committee stated she was “primarily considered a Central Districts rider having ridden once at Te Rapa on Foxbridge Plate day.” If that were not the case, then the Committee had treated Taupo as a “quasi Central Districts” or a “cross-over” meeting.

[11] Mr Riddell emphasised the inconsistency of race day suspensions by referring to the penalties imposed on Ms R Myers on 4 August and 21 August. With respect to both suspensions Ms Myers was treated as a northern rider. Mr Riddell referred to her record, which evidenced that she had only ridden once in the north (Waipa) in the past three months, yet the day at Matamata was included in her suspension.

[12] Mr Riddell pointed out that the mix of handicap races and set weight races affected his ability to obtain rides, as well as the time of year, eg winter when was harder to obtain rides and, with travelling, was less attractive due to having to waste hard and drive to venues in the North Island.

[13] Mr Riddell also provided an email from Mr S Ramsay, which stated he was keen to have the appellant ride at Matamata on 7 September. The horse the appellant was to ride was one he had ridden previously.

[14] Mr Riddell concluded his submission by stating different people involved on different judicial panels should not affect his or any jockey’s ability to ride. He asked for consistency of penalty and that the same rules should be applied on all race days, which had not been true in his case.

Respondent’s case

[15] Mr Oatham first drew this Tribunal’s attention to the JCA Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees, which became effective on 1 May 2015, where under the section “Calculation of days” on page seven, the Guide states: “When calculating the meetings to be included in a suspension judicial committees must use inquiries of the rider and stipendiary stewards and the rider’s recent riding history to ensure the period of suspension is genuine”.

[16] Mr Oatham noted that this was backed up by the Parkes decision where it was said that “a suspension cannot be considered ‘genuine’ if the period includes a day or days at places where a jockey would not ride and has not ridden except on rare occasions.” In making their determination, he said, it was clear that the Judicial Committee had fulfilled the requirements of the Penalty Guide in coming to their assessment of what race days should be included.

[17] Mr Oatham then submitted that it had been accepted and confirmed by the Parkes appeal that a period of three months was commonly used when assessing a rider’s recent history.

[18] Mr Riddell’s riding history was surveyed. Mr Oatham said in the last twelve months there was no habitual pattern of riding in the Northern Region. He identified the following meetings:

19/08/16 – Taupo (Industry)
07/05/16 – Waikato (Feature)
12/03/16 – Auckland (Iconic – Akld Cup/NZ Stakes)
05/03/16 – Auckland (Iconic – NZ Derby)
20/02/16 – Auckland (Feature – Avondale Cup/Guineas)
06/02/16 – Waikato (Feature – Waikato Guineas)
08/01/16 – Rotorua (Industry)
18/09/15 – Taupo (Industry)

[19] Mr Oatham observed that after riding at the corresponding Taupo meeting to that included in the suspension under appeal, the appellant did not ride again in the Northern Region until 8 January 2016.

[20] Whilst agreeing with the submissions of the appellant that consistency of penalties is important, Mr Oatham submitted that the determination of the race day Judicial Committee on this occasion was entirely consistent with the requirements of the Penalty Guide and the penalty imposed was not one which could be deemed to be inadequate or inappropriate or manifestly excessive in any way.

Decision

[21] The Parkes decision requires a Committee to ensure that the penalty imposed on a jockey is a genuine penalty. The Tribunal stated:

To make a penalty “genuine” there can be no other way than looking at a jockey’s recent riding history and determining where a jockey habitually rides. “Genuine” means, among other things, for the purposes of penalty, “effective,” or “realistic”. A suspension cannot be considered to be “genuine” if the period includes a day or days at places where a jockey would not ride and has not ridden except on rare occasions.

[22] The race day Judicial Committee was aware of this decision and indeed made careful reference to it when imposing penalty on Mr Riddell.

[23] We approve the Parkes decision and would apply it in this instance.

[24] We next have regard to the record of the two jockeys to whom Mr Riddell referred in his submissions.

[25] Ms Myers’ record indicates that she had ridden in the north at Taupo on 18 September, Auckland on 24 January, Te Rapa on 6 February, Auckland 20 February, Poverty Bay 21 February, Wairoa 25 and 28 February, Auckland 5 March, Te Rapa 7 May and Taumarunui (Rotorua) 30 July. She had thus ridden at a number of northern North Island meetings.

[26] Ms Andrew’s record discloses that she had had 138 race day rides up to the day at issue with no prior disciplinary breaches. She has ridden only once outside the Central Districts in that time, the Foxbridge Plate day (13 August) at Waikato, as previously noted.

[27] We accept Mr Riddell’s submission that Taupo is a northern day. There is nothing in the Judicial Committee’s decision to suggest they treated it otherwise, other than the fact that Ms Andrew’s suspension finishes on that day. The Committee accepted Mr Riddell had ridden at that venue in recent times. He, as noted, had ridden there twice in the past 13 months.

[28] Mr Riddell last rode at Waikato (Te Rapa) on 7 May, a premier day. We are told that neither party raised this in their oral submissions on the day and, understandably, the Committee did not refer to this (although Mr Riddell states the day at Ellerslie was mentioned to the Committee on the day by Mr Oatham). We also note that Mr Riddell has ridden once in the past 13 months (on 18 January) at Rotorua, where he had three rides.

[29] The three-month period during which previous rides are assessed is no more than a rule of thumb. We can find no reference to it in the Rules or in the JCA Penalty Guide.

[30] There is a reference to it in Parkes in these terms: “Mr Oatham also said that he was of the clear understanding that Judicial Committees would look at the last three months of a jockey’s record to see where he or she habitually rode.” But the decision itself does not endorse the three-month period and is thus not authority for the proposition that only rides in the previous three months are to be considered.

[31] In our view, the three-month calculation period can be viewed as helpful but at a time of irregular winter racing, for example, it loses a great deal of its utility. We believe there will be occasions when it is appropriate to look beyond a three-month period. We have already identified one example, where racing is infrequent, and another would be where a jockey rides infrequently or has been unable to ride through injury, suspension or some other valid reason.

[32] On this occasion we have examined the appellant’s record for last season and this season to date. We have also considered Mr Ramsay’s email. We believe the race day Committee correctly described Mr Riddell as a Central Districts rider in that he habitually rides in that District.

[33] The question then arises of whether it is appropriate to take into account days on which a jockey has ridden outside the district in which he primarily rides due to it being a premier meeting or a feature stakes day. It is our view it is not, unless of course such a day would be encompassed by the period of suspension, which a Committee proposes to impose, when clearly it is an appropriate consideration. Thus the fact a North Island jockey had ridden at Riccarton, for example, on a premier day, should result in a premier day at Riccarton, but not a non-premier day at that venue, being included in the determination of the number of days of a suspension. On that basis, we would not consider the meeting at Te Rapa on 14 September to be encompassed by Mr Riddell’s suspension.

[34] Ms Andrew has received a suspension in similar terms to that imposed upon the appellant, however the meetings that are encompassed by the suspension are not specified. It is evident that the suspension incorporates three Central District and one Northern Region day, unless Taupo is considered to be a Central District’s day.

[35] The unrelated case of Ms Myers evidences that she had ridden at a number of Northern meetings in the past season. We leave open the issue of whether she should be classed as primarily a Central Districts or a North Island jockey, as that issue is simply not before us. She may or may not have been fortunate to have Avondale included in her suspension, as Mr Riddell states in his submission, as she had not ridden there in the past season. But because an error was allegedly made with respect to Ms Myers does mean that we as an Appeals Tribunal should perpetuate any error.

[36] Mr Riddell has ridden in the Northern Region on eight occasions in the past 12 months, five of which were premier or feature days. We do not believe he can be regarded as habitually riding in the Northern Region and on that basis we would not regard him to be a Northern as well as a Central Districts jockey. That being the case, if a jockey wants the Committee to take into account a day outside his or her district, the Committee must have regard to when that the jockey last rode at the venue to determine if it is a genuine day (as per Parkes). The caveat that we have stated above at [35], with respect to premier and feature days, is also to be considered.

[37] On this basis, we accept that as the appellant had recently ridden at Taupo, it was appropriate for the Committee to take that day into account when determining the days encompassed by the suspension. We do not believe it was appropriate to take any other northern days into account, as the appellant has only ridden there on rare occasions and thus these would not be “genuine” days, as identified in Parkes.

[38] We find no error in the Committee’s reasoning with respect to the penalty imposed on Mr Riddell and we thus dismiss the appeal.

Costs

[39] The RIU have made no application for costs.

[40] The matter has been heard on the papers. The appellant has paid the filing fee. We make no award of costs to the JCA.

Dated at Dunedin this 12th day of September 2016.

Geoff Hall, Chairman

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: