Appeal – LK Cropp 20 March 2006
ID: JCA22482
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision: --
This is an appeal against the finding of the raceday Judicial Committee of 4 March 2006 at the Auckland Racing Club's meeting at Ellerslie. The appellant was found to have ridden carelessly causing interference to "Gee I Jane" ridden by L. G. Innes in Race 7 the Darley Plate.
--
BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--HELD AT HAMILTON
--IN THE MATTER OF
--New Zealand Rules of Racing
--BETWEEN
--LK CROPP - Appellant
--AND
--NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING
--- Respondent
--APPEAL TRIBUNAL: Mr JM Phelan (Chairman)
--Mr BP Holland
--APPEARANCES:
--Ms LK Cropp - Appellant
--Mr G Tankard - for Appellant
--Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr LN McCutcheon - for Respondent
--Stipendiary Steward - Mr A Coles
--Stipendiary Steward - Mr J Oatham
--Mr L Goord
--Mrs M Stanbury - Registrar
--DATE OF HEARING: 20 March 2006
--_______________________________________________________________
--DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--_______________________________________________________________
--At the commencement of this hearing Mr Tankard advised that Miss Cropp wanted to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The Notice of Appeal lodged by Miss
--Cropp had been against sentence only. This application was referred to Mr
--McCutcheon and he had no objections to the appeal being against both conviction and sentence.
--This is therefore an appeal against the finding of the raceday Judicial Committee of 4 March 2006 at the Auckland Racing Club's meeting at Ellerslie. The appellant was found to have ridden carelessly causing interference to "Gee I Jane" ridden by L. G. Innes in Race 7 the Darley Plate. The appellant also appeals against the sentence which was suspension of her Jockey's Licence for a period of two weeks.
--The procedure for this appeal against conviction is governed by Rule 1205(2) and is to be by way of a rehearing based on the evidence adduced at the original raceday hearing. Neither party sought to call witnesses or to introduce new evidence. We note that there is no presumption in favour of the decision of the Judicial Committee and that we must reach our own decision. We must bear in mind the findings of credibility of the Judicial Committee and be slow to differ from them, but we are not bound to follow them. As with the raceday hearing the respondent has the onus of proving the charge.
--After hearing evidence from the parties and viewing the various videos this hearing was adjourned. On resuming the hearing we gave the following oral decision.
------"For reasons which will be reduced to writing and delivered as soon as possible we find, after listening carefully to the evidence, that there was interference as
--alleged. The appeal is dismissed.
--In relation to penalty we are satisfied that the appellant must satisfy us that the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. We are satisfied that the raceday Judicial Committee took into account all the relevant factors when suspending the appellant for a period of two weeks.
--Pursuant to Rule 1213 we therefore suspend the appellant's Jockey's Licence for a period of two weeks. The period of suspension is to commence after the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 22 March 2006 until after the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 5 April 2006.
--Reasons For The Above Decision:
--In presenting his case for the appellant Mr Tankard made extensive use of the transcript of the raceday hearing and the front on and side on videos. The parts played in this incident by Kaye's Awake (the appellant), Tsarina Belle (C. K. Ormsby) and Gee I Jane (L. G. Innes) were also analysed leading up to and during the alleged interference. It was shown on the front on video that when entering the final straight Kaye's Awake was in front of Gee I Jane with Tsarina Belle further back and widest on the track, but moving forward. Mr Tankard took issue with the following matters.
--Firstly he disputed that Tsarina Belle's participation in the incident was minor. It was his argument that this horse had moved inwards and had been the cause of Gee I Jane
--suffering interference.
--Secondly he disagreed with the evidence of Mr Innes when this witness said that Tsarina Belle "had drifted back in a little bit" at this time. There was also disagreement with the Stipendiary Steward's assessment that this movement had not contributed to the interference.
--The front on video appeared to support the appellant's case that she had only moved outwards, and in front of Gee I Jane, after she had cleared that horse, and that an inwards movement by Tsarina Belle had been the cause of the interference.
--Mr McCutcheon gave evidence and he made use of the rear on video of this incident. Mr McCutcheon illustrated that there was room for Gee I Jane to take a gap between Kaye's Awake and Tsarina Belle, and that it was at this point that Kaye's Awake had been allowed to move outwards by the appellant, with resultant interference to Gee I Jane.
--Having viewed the video tapes taken from the front, side and rear, and having heard the evidence from Mr Tankard and Mr McCutcheon, we were left in no doubt that there was interference by the appellant when she allowed her mount to move outwards when not sufficiently clear of Gee I Jane. We determined that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.
--In relation to the appeal against sentence we agree with the raceday Judicial Committee that there was significant interference to Gee I Jane, and that this interference affected the chances of that horse. When deciding on an appropriate penalty it was inevitable
--that a period of suspension should be imposed. The raceday Judicial Committee rightly took into account the provisions of Rule 1122(2). In particular we also find that a suspension of two weeks was appropriate due to the fact that the appellant had been suspended for 6 riding days as recently as January 2006. There was no evidence that the penalty imposed was inappropriate or manifestly excessive (see Rule 1207).
--Rule 1213 requires that where a term of suspension has been stayed pending determination of an appeal, and that appeal is subsequently dismissed, the Appeals Tribunal shall impose a term of suspension commensurate with that originally imposed.
--Mr Tankard raised that the appellant had missed two days riding because of the original suspension. We note that the original suspension, by the appellant's calculations, included nine race days. The re-imposed suspension includes seven race days. We are satisfied that the appellant will not be disadvantaged.
--Costs: The question of costs was raised with the parties, and we indicated that there would be an order for costs in favour of the JCA. We set these costs at $1000.
--Mr McCutcheon advised that Thoroughbred Racing was seeking costs of $400. The appellant said that it should be taken into account that the appeal was not frivolous in that it was genuinely believed that there was a defence to the charge and the severity of the sentence. We take these matters into account but there will be an order for costs of $400 payable to Thoroughbred Racing.
--We finally deal with the deposit paid by the appellant. Rule 1211 gives this Tribunal a
--discretion as to whether this fee should be forfeited or not. We take into account what the appellant has said in relation to the reason for the appeal, and find no evidence that it was other than genuine. However the appeal against both conviction and sentence have been dismissed with our findings being much the same as those of the raceday Judicial Committee.
--We therefore direct that this fee be forfeited to Thoroughbred Racing.
----
_______________ _______________
--J. M. Phelan B. P. Holland
--Chairman
Decision Date: 01/01/2001
Publish Date: 01/01/2001
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: d6b2cb13daca31c317a2db55f0798d38
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2001
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Appeal - LK Cropp 20 March 2006
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--This is an appeal against the finding of the raceday Judicial Committee of 4 March 2006 at the Auckland Racing Club's meeting at Ellerslie. The appellant was found to have ridden carelessly causing interference to "Gee I Jane" ridden by L. G. Innes in Race 7 the Darley Plate.
--
BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--HELD AT HAMILTON
--IN THE MATTER OF
--New Zealand Rules of Racing
--BETWEEN
--LK CROPP - Appellant
--AND
--NEW ZEALAND THOROUGHBRED RACING
--- Respondent
--APPEAL TRIBUNAL: Mr JM Phelan (Chairman)
--Mr BP Holland
--APPEARANCES:
--Ms LK Cropp - Appellant
--Mr G Tankard - for Appellant
--Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr LN McCutcheon - for Respondent
--Stipendiary Steward - Mr A Coles
--Stipendiary Steward - Mr J Oatham
--Mr L Goord
--Mrs M Stanbury - Registrar
--DATE OF HEARING: 20 March 2006
--_______________________________________________________________
--DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
--_______________________________________________________________
--At the commencement of this hearing Mr Tankard advised that Miss Cropp wanted to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The Notice of Appeal lodged by Miss
--Cropp had been against sentence only. This application was referred to Mr
--McCutcheon and he had no objections to the appeal being against both conviction and sentence.
--This is therefore an appeal against the finding of the raceday Judicial Committee of 4 March 2006 at the Auckland Racing Club's meeting at Ellerslie. The appellant was found to have ridden carelessly causing interference to "Gee I Jane" ridden by L. G. Innes in Race 7 the Darley Plate. The appellant also appeals against the sentence which was suspension of her Jockey's Licence for a period of two weeks.
--The procedure for this appeal against conviction is governed by Rule 1205(2) and is to be by way of a rehearing based on the evidence adduced at the original raceday hearing. Neither party sought to call witnesses or to introduce new evidence. We note that there is no presumption in favour of the decision of the Judicial Committee and that we must reach our own decision. We must bear in mind the findings of credibility of the Judicial Committee and be slow to differ from them, but we are not bound to follow them. As with the raceday hearing the respondent has the onus of proving the charge.
--After hearing evidence from the parties and viewing the various videos this hearing was adjourned. On resuming the hearing we gave the following oral decision.
------"For reasons which will be reduced to writing and delivered as soon as possible we find, after listening carefully to the evidence, that there was interference as
--alleged. The appeal is dismissed.
--In relation to penalty we are satisfied that the appellant must satisfy us that the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. We are satisfied that the raceday Judicial Committee took into account all the relevant factors when suspending the appellant for a period of two weeks.
--Pursuant to Rule 1213 we therefore suspend the appellant's Jockey's Licence for a period of two weeks. The period of suspension is to commence after the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 22 March 2006 until after the conclusion of racing on Wednesday 5 April 2006.
--Reasons For The Above Decision:
--In presenting his case for the appellant Mr Tankard made extensive use of the transcript of the raceday hearing and the front on and side on videos. The parts played in this incident by Kaye's Awake (the appellant), Tsarina Belle (C. K. Ormsby) and Gee I Jane (L. G. Innes) were also analysed leading up to and during the alleged interference. It was shown on the front on video that when entering the final straight Kaye's Awake was in front of Gee I Jane with Tsarina Belle further back and widest on the track, but moving forward. Mr Tankard took issue with the following matters.
--Firstly he disputed that Tsarina Belle's participation in the incident was minor. It was his argument that this horse had moved inwards and had been the cause of Gee I Jane
--suffering interference.
--Secondly he disagreed with the evidence of Mr Innes when this witness said that Tsarina Belle "had drifted back in a little bit" at this time. There was also disagreement with the Stipendiary Steward's assessment that this movement had not contributed to the interference.
--The front on video appeared to support the appellant's case that she had only moved outwards, and in front of Gee I Jane, after she had cleared that horse, and that an inwards movement by Tsarina Belle had been the cause of the interference.
--Mr McCutcheon gave evidence and he made use of the rear on video of this incident. Mr McCutcheon illustrated that there was room for Gee I Jane to take a gap between Kaye's Awake and Tsarina Belle, and that it was at this point that Kaye's Awake had been allowed to move outwards by the appellant, with resultant interference to Gee I Jane.
--Having viewed the video tapes taken from the front, side and rear, and having heard the evidence from Mr Tankard and Mr McCutcheon, we were left in no doubt that there was interference by the appellant when she allowed her mount to move outwards when not sufficiently clear of Gee I Jane. We determined that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.
--In relation to the appeal against sentence we agree with the raceday Judicial Committee that there was significant interference to Gee I Jane, and that this interference affected the chances of that horse. When deciding on an appropriate penalty it was inevitable
--that a period of suspension should be imposed. The raceday Judicial Committee rightly took into account the provisions of Rule 1122(2). In particular we also find that a suspension of two weeks was appropriate due to the fact that the appellant had been suspended for 6 riding days as recently as January 2006. There was no evidence that the penalty imposed was inappropriate or manifestly excessive (see Rule 1207).
--Rule 1213 requires that where a term of suspension has been stayed pending determination of an appeal, and that appeal is subsequently dismissed, the Appeals Tribunal shall impose a term of suspension commensurate with that originally imposed.
--Mr Tankard raised that the appellant had missed two days riding because of the original suspension. We note that the original suspension, by the appellant's calculations, included nine race days. The re-imposed suspension includes seven race days. We are satisfied that the appellant will not be disadvantaged.
--Costs:
The question of costs was raised with the parties, and we indicated that there would be an order for costs in favour of the JCA. We set these costs at $1000.--Mr McCutcheon advised that Thoroughbred Racing was seeking costs of $400. The appellant said that it should be taken into account that the appeal was not frivolous in that it was genuinely believed that there was a defence to the charge and the severity of the sentence. We take these matters into account but there will be an order for costs of $400 payable to Thoroughbred Racing.
--We finally deal with the deposit paid by the appellant. Rule 1211 gives this Tribunal a
--discretion as to whether this fee should be forfeited or not. We take into account what the appellant has said in relation to the reason for the appeal, and find no evidence that it was other than genuine. However the appeal against both conviction and sentence have been dismissed with our findings being much the same as those of the raceday Judicial Committee.
--We therefore direct that this fee be forfeited to Thoroughbred Racing.
----
_______________ _______________
--J. M. Phelan B. P. Holland
--Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 1205.2, 1122.2
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: