Appeal – K Williams v NZTR – 18 May 2010 – Decision

hearingid: 3d546508218b5296ce9b9d1f2631e598

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - K Williams v NZTR - 18 May 2010 - Decision

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

APPEAL HEARING : KYLIE WILLIAMS v NZTR

Heard at Riccarton Racecourse Christchurch

Tuesday 18^th May 2010

APPEALS TRIBUNAL  Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman and Ms Nicki Moffatt

PRESENT:  Kylie Williams Licensed Jockey

                  Mr Jeff McLaughlin Stipendiary Steward

                  Mr Robin Scott Registrar

DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL 18^TH MAY 2010

1.            THE APPEAL AND THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

1.1          Ms Williams appeals the penalty decision of the Judicial Committee at Riccarton given on the 8^th May this year. A charge of careless riding laid under Rule 638(1)(d) was admitted. This had to do with Ms Williams ride on the horse William of Orange. It was said that Ms Williams allowed her mount to shift inwards in the home straight when not clear of the horse Caley Marie ridden by Ms Kelly Myers and caused that horse to be hampered. On the day there was a protest lodged by the Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Cameron George and the horse William of Orange which had finished second was relegated to fourth.

1.2          Ms Williams admitted the charge of careless riding. After the Judicial Committee had heard the protest it then embarked upon a hearing of the charge of careless riding. The Judicial Committee imposed a period of four (4) days suspension up to and including the race meeting at Gore on 26^th May this year.

1.3          After filing her notice of appeal Ms Williams sought a stay of proceedings. There was a hearing by telephone on the 12^th May. Ms Williams made submissions and Mr Cameron George appeared for NZTR. The stay application was opposed. Ms Williams sought the stay in order to ride a horse called Divine Right at Timaru on Friday of last week. Ms Williams trains that horse and had ridden it in its more recent starts. She told the Chairman that the horse was owned in part by members of her family. On the 8^th May at Riccarton Ms Williams advised the Judicial Committee that she did not seek to have the commencement of her suspension delayed. She was expressly asked about this by the Chairman on the day. On the 12^th May when asked about this she said that she did not realise that she could ask for a deferment after the decision of the Judicial Committee had been announced. In the Tribunal’s view that is a disingenuous explanation. Ms Williams went on to say that she hadn’t asked earlier for a deferment because she thought she was only going to be suspended for something like two (2) days. Mr George for NZTR opposed the stay application saying that Ms Williams had the opportunity to raise that with the Committee on the day and had not done so. Mr George went on to say that there had been occasions when jockeys had come back to the Committee an hour or so after the hearing and explained that they had realised that there was a ride coming up which they had forgotten about or had overlooked and sought a reconsideration. Mr George informed the Tribunal that in those circumstances reconsideration had been agreed to.

1.4          In the circumstances outlined and knowing that the substantive appeal was set down for today the 18^th May the Tribunal was disinclined to grant the application for stay and Ms Williams was so advised. It is to be noted that the horse Divine Right ran at Timaru on Friday the 14^th May and finished second.

2.            THE CASE FOR MS WILLIAMS ON APPEAL

2.1          Ms Williams first points to a passage in the transcript of the hearing on the 8^th May at page 5. The pages are un-numbered but if a numbering exercise is undertaken it is the fifth page. This passage speaks about “the National Rider Scheme” and a comparison with that leading to a suspension in the range of four (4) to five (5) days. The passage goes on to suggest that for a rider who is confined to the South Island the period should be less and there is reference to a period of two (2) days. It is Ms Williams position that the Judicial Committee did not take sufficient recognition of the fact that her riding in recent times has been confined to the South Island. More will be said later of the so-called “National Rider Scheme”. In essence it was Ms Williams position that her case had been considered as if she were riding across the country when that was not the case.

2.2          Ms Williams pointed to the position of the jockey Chris Johnson who had been suspended for five (5) days on the 8^th May at Riccarton. She said that this jockey had three (3) careless riding convictions since October 2009. She contrasted this with her own position where there has been only one (1) relevant conviction for careless riding and that was some seven months ago. The Committee was not shown the race in which Mr Johnson rode and in any event a comparison of one race against another is very difficult. Any comparison with that other race, the circumstances of which are not known to us, is not particularly helpful.

2.3          Ms Williams had gone to quite some trouble to compare figures for the periods of suspension imposed on other jockeys who ride primarily in the South Island. These statistics date from January this year to the current period. The circumstances of the individual cases are only outlined in the briefest terms. Some of the information was mistaken. The case of the jockey Jason Collett is of no assistance as his suspension and fine were both quashed on appeal. Moreover that was a case where he had pleaded not guilty at first instance and Ms Williams pleaded guilty in this case. Nonetheless it is clear to the Tribunal that there is some measure of differentiation between the penalties that have been imposed in cases involving jockeys who ride across the country compared with those whose riding is confined to the South Island. Reference was made to this circumstance in the earlier decision of the Appeal Tribunal in October 2009 in the case of Michael Walker v NZTR heard at Matamata. Some further reference will be made to that later.

2.4          Curiously NZTR did not put before the Tribunal any statistics or information of any kind for periods of suspension imposed upon jockeys for careless riding in recent times. That is not satisfactory.

3.            NZTR POSITION

3.1          The case for NZTR was presented by the Stipendiary Steward Mr Jeff McLaughlin. He was present at Riccarton on the 8^th May but had to absent himself part way through the hearing. The representative of NZTR on the 8^th May was Chief Stipendiary Steward for New Zealand Mr Cameron George. It was he who preferred the charge against Ms Williams. He is not here today and the Tribunal has been given no explanation for that. Mr McLaughlin told the Tribunal that he became aware that he would have the conduct of this appeal only on Saturday last. He did not have a copy of the transcript of the hearing with him nor a copy of the decision and he told the Tribunal that he had not seen either of these. He further explained that he had yesterday been at NZTR headquarters in Wellington and had discussed this appeal with Mr George. In those circumstances it is inexplicable that Mr McLaughlin had seen neither the transcript of the hearing nor a copy of the decision of the Judicial Committee. No written material was put before the hearing on behalf of NZTR.

3.2          In support of the decision of the Committee Mr McLaughlin in his oral submissions emphasised these considerations:

·         That the riding in question had resulted in the relegation of the horse William of Orange.

·         That the racing was on a premier day and the race in question was for a significant stake of $35,000.00. Asked about the prize money differential Mr McLaughlin explained that the prize money for second was $7,500.00 and the prize money for fourth was $1,500.00.

3.3          In reference to the so-called “National Rider Scheme” Mr McLaughlin acknowledged that this was an informal circumstance which sought to give some recognition to the greater opportunities available to riders in the North Island who travel to the South Island in contrast to those whose riding is confined almost entirely to the South Island.

3.4          In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal Mr McLaughlin categorised the careless riding in question as “in the low range”.

4.            DISCUSSION

4.1          The conduct of appeals under the Rules of Racing is by way of rehearing. The Tribunal must give careful consideration to the decision of the Judicial Committee on the day. This was an experienced Committee.  An Appeal Tribunal should only allow an appeal if it is persuaded that the Judicial Committee was plainly in error.

4.2          The films have been studied carefully. There are plainly two (2) incidents in the straight. It is the NZTR position that the second of these is the more significant. That was perforce nearer the winning post and it is clear the mount of Ms Myers was blocked for a run. Doubtless it is this circumstance led to the relegation of William of Orange.

4.3          The Tribunal is conscious that there was relegation. That of itself does not however call for a greater penalty to be imposed upon the jockey. It is the degree of carelessness which is of critical significance. After all in a relegation situation both the owners and the jockey suffer a significant reduction in prize money or income as the case may be.

4.4          As to the position of jockeys in different parts of New Zealand and the relativity of penalties there reference was made earlier to the appeal hearing in Michael Walker v NZTR. It is difficult to see any distinct pattern but it is clear to the Tribunal that differences have been established in the past and there is plainly a rationale for that.

4.5          We turn to the riding in question. There are a number of issues which arise here. These are:

·         The transcript of the hearing is unsatisfactory with reference to the categorisation of the riding by Mr George. There is a passage on page 2 of the transcript which cannot be readily understood. This is not intended as a criticism of Mr George but rather perhaps it is a case where the recording of what was said is imperfect. The decision of the Committee on the day recorded the evidence of Mr George as describing the events as “interference not at the highest end of the scale”. In that regard note what was said earlier in paragraph 3.4 above.

·         There were, as the films – side on and head on demonstrate – two (2) separate incidents of interference where the chances of the horse Caley Marie were hampered. Mr McLaughlin was right to emphasise that the second of these was more serious. It is highly likely that had this incident not occurred Caley Marie would have found a better place in the finish and there may not have been a charge preferred against Ms Williams. The Tribunal makes no criticism whatever of the Judicial Committee’s decision to relegate Ms Williams mount.

·         Ms Williams for her part said that the jockey on the winning horse Ms Spittles in some way contributed to the events. The Committee has looked at the films for that particular purpose and cannot see any real force in that submission.

4.6          We turn to the riding record of Ms Williams. This is described in the decision of the Judicial Committee as being “her relatively good record”. In fact the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Williams has a very good, indeed an excellent record.

4.7          Reference was made by the Committee to the fact that it was a premier day and the stake money was $35,000.00. Both of those observations have validity but it was not a group or listed race.

4.8          The Tribunal having carefully studied the films is satisfied that the fault or error on Ms Williams part was at the low range – to use the expression adopted by Mr McLaughlin.

4.9          The Tribunal does not consider that the Committee gave adequate recognition to Ms Williams excellent record. Further we take the view that there is something to be said for the distinction between those jockeys who ride only in the South Island and those who ride across the country as a whole. In our view that consideration was not adequately acknowledged.

4.10        In all the circumstances outlined here we have come to the conclusion that the suspension should have been for three (3) days and not four (4). This is not a major variation of the Committee’s decision but in the circumstances which prevail in the South Island and in the position in which Ms Williams finds herself it is a matter of some moment. It follows from what we have said that the decision of the Judicial Committee is set aside and a suspension of three (3) days imposed up to and including Otago on the 20^th May this year.  This means that Ms Williams is free to ride at Gore on the 26^th May 2010.

4.11        Submissions were invited on the question of costs. Neither party seeks costs and in the circumstances there shall be no order either way.

DATED  this 18^th day of May 2010

__________________________________

Murray   McKechnie

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

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: