Appeal – Ms J Cameron v NZTR 24 Apr 09

hearingid: a531db61faf518bfbd4b36450d79f994

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - Ms J Cameron v NZTR 24 Apr 09

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

APPEAL HEARING : JAN CAMERON v NZTR
HEARD AT WAIKATO RACING CLUB, TE RAPA RACECOURSE, HAMILTON
FRIDAY 24TH APRIL 2009

DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL

1. THE APPEAL
1.1 Ms Cameron has appealed a decision of the Judicial Committee given at Riverton on the 11th April 2009. With this decision is published the ruling of the Chairman of the Tribunal dated the 20th April this year when Ms Cameron’s application for a stay of proceedings was declined.

APPENDIX I

RULING OF CHAIRMAN OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL 20TH APRIL 2009
  
1. NATURE OF APPEAL
1.1 Ms Cameron has appealed from a decision of the Judicial Committee given at Riverton on  the 11th April 2009. Ms Cameron was charged under Rule 866(1)(c). She pleaded guilty and was suspended for a period from the close of racing on 11th April until the close of racing on the 24th May. In addition she was fined the sum of $500.00. It can be seen that the suspension was for a six week period.

APPEAL HEARING : JAN CAMERON v NZTR
HEARD AT WAIKATO RACING CLUB, TE RAPA RACECOURSE, HAMILTON
FRIDAY 24TH APRIL 2009
APPEALS TRIBUNAL  Mr M S McKechnie, Chairman and Mr R Seabrook

PRESENT   Ms Cameron by telephone link from Darwin
Mr Reid Sanders, Chief Stipendiary Steward for NZTR

DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL

1. THE APPEAL
1.1 Ms Cameron has appealed a decision of the Judicial Committee given at Riverton on the 11th April 2009. With this decision is published the ruling of the Chairman of the Tribunal dated the 20th April this year when Ms Cameron’s application for a stay of proceedings was declined.

1.2 Ms Cameron stated that the penalty imposed upon her was too severe. In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal she indicated that she thought a period of suspension for one (1) month would have been more appropriate.

1.3 The charge arises from the meeting of the Beaumont Racing Club held on the 5th April this year. In race 3 Ms Cameron rode the horse Mortification. It finished fourth.

2. CASE FOR MS CAMERON
2.1 Ms Cameron emphasised that the horse Mortification had, in her judgment, come to the end of its run halfway up the straight. She said that she heard the horse hold its breath and she thought it might be choking down. She said she was concerned in case the horse was about to bleed.

2.2 Ms Cameron acknowledged that she stopped riding the horse some distance short of the winning post. The Judicial Committee was told that it was six strides and on our viewing of the race it was six or perhaps seven strides before the winning post. In the result the horse lost third placing by a narrow margin.

2.3 Ms Cameron pointed to a number of other cases over a period of many years. In particular she drew our attention to the cases involving the horses Watch Officer, Salt, Gary the Lad and Vagabond. These cases go from 1998 in the case of Watch Officer to October of last year in the case of Vagabond. All of these cases are known to the Tribunal. The members of the Tribunal were themselves personally involved in a number of these cases including the particularly significant case involving the horse Watch Officer. More recently the Chairman sat on the case involving the horse Vagabond.

2.4 Ms Cameron complained that at the hearing she was not given adequate opportunity to explain the commitments which she had upcoming in Australia. As to those matters reference is again made to the ruling on the stay application.

2.5 We have looked carefully at the decision of the Raceday Committee and it seems clear that Ms Cameron did explain that she was travelling to Australia and would be race riding in Darwin. The decision records that prior to fixing penalty that the Committee asked Ms Cameron to clarify her commitments within the seven (7) day rule and it appears that the position was unclear. In any event given that Ms Cameron has today acknowledged that a month’s suspension would have been appropriate the position in relation to the seven (7) day rule is of little consequence.

2.6 Mr Sanders pointed out that if Ms Cameron had been as concerned for the welfare of the horse as now appears to be the case then she ought to have taken steps on the day to report the horse’s condition to the stipendiary stewards. That was not done. Ms Cameron has told us that the horse was vetted some two (2) days later and that a deal of mucus was found following a scoping of the horse.

3. THE CASE FOR NZTR
3.1 Mr Sanders had prepared helpful written submissions in which he canvassed the circumstances of the race and drew our attention to a number of recent cases. In particular he stressed how clearly the film demonstrated Ms Cameron sitting up on the horse. He emphasised that this was not just as the winning post arrived but some distance before that point – in his submission approximately 30 metres. He supported the decision of the Judicial Committee saying that this was a bad case of its kind particularly having regard to that consideration which has just been mentioned with reference to the distance from the winning post where the rider ceased to exercise any vigour at all.

3.2 Mr Sanders also submitted, quite rightly in our view, that the position of the wider racing public must be considered especially in circumstances where, as here, the horse has been beaten out of a dividend bearing position.

3.3 Finally Mr Sanders said that it is not unprecedented for there to be both a suspension and the imposition of a monetary penalty. He pointed to the well known  Watch Officer case in 1998. In that case the $5,000.00 monetary penalty was imposed upon a prosecutors appeal. For reasons which we shall explain later that case and the present case are significantly different.

4. DECISION
4.1 Mr Sanders has provided a printout of all of the licence holders who have offended against this rule since mid 1996 – that is to say for more than the last ten (10) years. This is very helpful when trying to make an assessment of the relevant degree of culpability in this case.

4.2 This was a bad case of a breach of Rule 866(1)(c). It would appear from the material provided to us and to which we have just referred that the penalty imposed here was as severe as any save for that in the Watch Officer case to which we have referred. When assessing the relevant culpability of Ms Cameron’s offending it is helpful to look at other cases where the breach has been at the highest level. The case of the jockey Mark Du Plessis in 2004 was a serious breach. In that case the horse lost the winning of the race. A suspension was imposed of seventeen (17) days.  In September 2005 the jockey Catherine Tremaine was suspended for four (4) weeks. That was losing third place – as is the case here. On appeal Ms Tremaine’s suspension was reduced from four (4) weeks to three (3) weeks. Both members of this Tribunal are very familiar with the Catherine Tremaine case.  In that case the failure to ride out occurred a good deal nearer to the winning post than is the case here. It follows that we might take the view that the breach here is more serious than was the position there. More recently the jockey Cecil Leveque was suspended for 3½ weeks at the Te Aroha meeting on the 15th April. Mr Seabrook was the Chairman of the Judicial Committee on that day and in our judgment that case bears some worthwhile comparison with the present.

4.3 Something further should be said of the Watch Officer case in 1998 involving the jockey Opie Bosson. This resulted in a six (6) week period of suspension and a fine of $5,000.00. The race was the Whakatane Cup run at Gate Pa. The horse was leading by a significant margin. Inexplicably Mr Bosson appeared to cease paying attention to his responsibilities as a jockey and another horse emerged and snatched the race close to the line. Mr Bosson acknowledged that he had made a serious error of judgment. In the opinion of the Tribunal the Watch Officer case is undoubtedly the worst that has come before a Judicial Committee in New Zealand in the relevant past. In our judgment it was significantly worse than the present. We are of course mindful that it occurred more than ten (10) years ago and that penalties for riding offences have not remained static.

4.4 It has already been observed that this was a serious breach. The concerns that Ms Cameron had about the health of the horse did not justify her in completely ceasing to ride the horse. It is clear from the film that quite suddenly any attempt to urge the horse forward was stopped. Even if Ms Cameron were seriously concerned about the health of the horse she still had an obligation under the rules to exercise appropriate vigour in those circumstances in order to try and maintain the horse’s position in the field. It is also clear to us from viewing the tape that had this been done then in all probability the horse would have filled the third placing.

4.5 The view we take is that the Judicial Committee were right to characterise this as a serious case. We consider however that when set against other comparable cases which we have analysed and have spoken of here this penalty was significantly out of line. Our decision must be consistent with other decisions of Appeal Tribunals. We have in mind in particular the Appeal Tribunal decisions in the Watch Officer and Vagabond appeals. An appropriate suspension would have and should have been for one (1) month. There are in our judgment worse cases where lesser penalties have been imposed. In the interests of consistency a penalty of one (1) month was the appropriate suspension. Further in our judgment the imposition of a fine is not warranted except in the most egregious case such as that of which we spoke earlier in respect of the horse Watch Officer running in the Whakatane Cup. All of this means that the appeal is allowed to the extent that the suspension is reduced to one (1) month and will continue and conclude at the end of racing on the 10th May 2009. The fine imposed by the Judicial Committee is cancelled.  The appeal having succeeded Ms Cameron is entitled to the refund of her deposit.

4.6 In all circumstances the Tribunal does not think that a costs award is appropriate either way. While Ms Cameron had good grounds to appeal this was, on her own admission, a serious breach. The JCA and indeed New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing and Mr Sanders have gone to a good deal of trouble to set this hearing up today with Ms Cameron being so far away in Darwin.

DATED  this 24th day of April 2009

__________________________________
Murray   McKechnie
Chairman

APPENDIX I

APPEAL HEARING : JAN CAMERON v NZTR

APPEALS TRIBUNAL  Mr M S McKechnie, Chairman and Mr R Seabrook

RULING OF CHAIRMAN OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL 20TH APRIL 2009
  
1. NATURE OF APPEAL
1.1 Ms Cameron has appealed from a decision of the Judicial Committee given at Riverton on  the 11th April 2009. Ms Cameron was charged under Rule 866(1)(c). She pleaded guilty and was suspended for a period from the close of racing on 11th April until the close of racing on the 24th May. In addition she was fined the sum of $500.00. It can be seen that the suspension was for a six week period.

1.2 Ms Cameron has appealed against the severity of the penalty. The appeal is set down for hearing at 2p.m. on Friday 24th April 2009 at Te Rapa Racecourse.

1.3 Ms Cameron left New Zealand to travel to Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia on the 16th April. The day before her departure on Wednesday 15th April there was a telephone conference with the Chairman. Discussion took place with Ms Cameron concerning how the appeal was to be conducted in her absence. NZTR was represented by the Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr Reid Sanders. Arrangements were put in place for a telephone link. Mr Sanders for his part indicated that he would make written submissions available in advance of the hearing and see that these were emailed to Ms Cameron. For her part Ms Cameron indicated that she would prepare some material and make that available both to NZTR and to the JCA.

1.4 Ms Cameron was asked by the Chairman if there was any question of a stay being sought. She indicated that there was not given the recognition that a term of suspension was appropriate and that her appeal was directed to the length of the term. For his part Mr Sanders indicated that he thought this was a realistic approach.

1.5 The telephone conference concluded on the basis that the hearing would proceed on Friday of this week in terms of the arrangements just outlined.

2. APPLICATION FOR STAY
2.1 Over the weekend Ms Cameron has notified the JCA that she has now reconsidered the position and seeks a stay of penalty. In an email to the Registrar of the JCA she indicated that upon arrival in Darwin she became aware that the trainer with whom she is professionally associated, a Mr Trengrove, was having difficulty in obtaining mounts for the Darwin Turf Club meeting on 25th April. Ms Cameron went on to relate that the Darwin meeting clashes with the Alice Springs Cup Carnival. Ms Cameron further contended that if she could not fulfil her commitments to Mr Trengrove then her position as his rider might be jeopardised.

2.2 The Registrar has sought the views of NZTR. In an email received earlier today Mr Sanders indicated that any application for a stay would be opposed. He pointed to the following considerations: First that Ms Cameron pleaded guilty and that the appeal was against the penalty only. Secondly, that a breach of this kind would always result in a suspension. Thirdly, that Ms Cameron had given notice at the telephone conference referred to earlier that she was not seeking a stay for the reasons explained above. Finally Mr Sanders indicated that the position in relation to a stay of proceedings might be different in Australia.

3. DECISION ON STAY APPLICATION
3.1 The Appeals Tribunal has an unfettered discretion under Rule 1306. The filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically operate as a stay. There must be some grounds of substance to justify a stay of proceedings. Where, as here, a significant period of suspension is inevitable there would need to be compelling grounds to grant a stay. Such grounds have not been made out. It appears to be a question of convenience for the licensed trainer in Australia. That is not, of itself, a sufficient ground to stay a suspension which may be reduced on appeal but which, following a guilty plea, will certainly remain in part. At the telephone conference last week Ms Cameron recognised that a period of suspension was inevitable. She realistically recognised that the best that she could hope for upon appeal was some reduction in the suspension and/or a reduction in the fine.

3.2 In the circumstances outlined and for the reasons explained the application for stay is refused.

DATED  this 20th day of April 2009

__________________________________
Murray   McKechnie
Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 866.1.c

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: