Appeal P Holmes v RIU 6 May 2011 – Decision 13 May 2011
ID: JCA17864
Decision:
Appearances : Appellant in person
Respondent in person
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[1] The appellant, Mr Holmes, was found to be in breach of R 638(1)(d) by a raceday committee in respect of his ride on SEAFLYTE in race 8 at the HAWKES BAY meeting at Hastings on 23 April last. The information alleged that Mr Holmes had ridden carelessly over the final stages when he allowed his mount to shift when being ridden with vigour resulting in him hitting the rail and becoming dislodged. His licence was suspended for five riding days. Mr Holmes appeals against both the finding that he was in breach of the rule and the penalty imposed.
[2] The appeal proceeded by way of rehearing based on the evidence adduced before the raceday judicial committee. Neither party sought leave to introduce new evidence.
[3] We indicated to the parties that there is no presumption that the decision appealed against is correct and that we would apply our own independent judgment to the facts of the case after hearing from the parties. We further stated that we would reach our own conclusions as to whether the evidence supported a finding that the breach is proved. With respect to this, we stated we would apply the civil standard of the balance of probabilities but in determining whether we were satisfied as to this standard, we would have regard to the fact that careless riding is not a minor charge and that the suspension of the appellant’s licence to ride was a likely consequence were his appeal to be unsuccessful.
[4] Mr Holmes stated his appeal was based on his belief that a combination of circumstances resulted in his fall within “the shadows of the post”, and that these circumstances in themselves did not constitute careless riding, which the judicial committee had determined was hinged on a lack of attention or thought. The committee on the day described this as "an unusual charge of careless riding", summarising their case by stating: "Simply put, Mr Holmes was not looking where he was going." He said he disagreed with this finding in the strongest fashion.
Submissions
[5] Mr Holmes then made the following detailed submissions:
“1. I firmly believe I gave Seaflyte every opportunity to win the Group 3 Tumu ITM Hawke’s Bay Cup. Following instructions I took him to the front early and attempted to dictate the pace from there. When we entered the straight I applied more pressure and the horse began to drift from the rail, eventually moving three horse widths out and into the path of two challenging runners. If there was any part of my ride that could be described as careless, perhaps it came in this outward movement.
2. In order to not further risk interfering with these runners, I straightened Seaflyte and drove for the line. At this point Seaflyte drifted towards the rail and as I was aware there was considerable room back to the nearest runner on the rail, I chose to go with this and try for the win rather than stopping his momentum and in doing so to certainly be beaten. At the point immediately prior to the incident I was confident Seaflyte was going to win or place in the race.
3. Seaflyte's rear leg made slight contact with the running rail. I have had this happen to horses many times through my ten seasons of riding, and in virtually every instance the horse either moves out or uses the rail as a boundary and runs on. Seaflyte however reacted in a most unpredictable way and almost attempted to climb the rail. This reaction occurred at the very second my own momentum was moving up on the horse and the result was that I was catapulted over the rail. Physics played an unfortunate part in the incident I believe as opposed to carelessness.
4. In hindsight I consider myself very fortunate that this incident did not take place a stride later in which case I would have been catapulted into the racing centre's winning post structure. This would certainly have resulted in far more serious life or career threatening injuries being suffered, and if that had been the case, would a charge of careless riding still have been levied against me?
5. At all stages I was aware of where I was on the track. The riding style I was taught involves staying low on the horse's back with forward vision gained looking through the horse's ears. I was also aware of where I was with regard to the running rail. I strongly dispute the committee's contention that I was not looking where I was going and cannot understand how they could reach such a conclusion of any rider in the front of the field in the final strides of a feature race.
6. If a lack of vision was a cause as the committee infer, it is my belief that it was Seaflyte that was suffering, not me. Seaflyte raced in blinkers with a shadow roll. The combined effect is dramatically reduced vision and almost no peripheral vision at all. When Seaflyte's rear leg touched the rail, she reacted to something she could not see by putting in the awkward step. I am not a veterinary expert however I have ridden enough horses with every piece of equipment on, and this combination is the most restrictive vision-wise for horses in my opinion. Similarly I do not have great knowledge of how horses may interpret dramatic colour changes on running rails, however the possibility that the scrape leading to a restricted glance at a now black rail could be a reason for Seaflyte's reaction must exist.
7. This was my first ride on Seaflyte. Trainer Mr Hillis advised me prior to the race that the horse had concentration issues, and this was evident on his way to the start. Taking him to the front was the planned solution to this possibility and this saw Seaflyte in a winning position at the 50 metre mark.
8. Following the race I was able to review the race and fall with his trainer Mr Hillis and Mr Devine, Seaflyte's owner. Both gentlemen assured me they saw no fault in my ride and both offered me the ride on Seaflyte in his next (at that time) planned start, the Rotorua Cup.”
[6] In response to questioning from this tribunal, the appellant affirmed his statement to the committee on the day that SEAFLYTE had shied during his preliminary and had baulked at the green box near the 800 metres. He acknowledged that it was not possible to see this from the video. He also agreed that the horse had moved from two or three horse widths off the rail to the rail and that he was striking the horse as it drifted towards the rail. He said he was intending to use the rail to straighten the horse and he demonstrated that, in his view, the horse had followed the rail for two strides before he fell. When asked whether he still believed SEAFLYTE had ducked in sharply, he replied “No”. He said the horse had gradually shifted both out and in, in the straight, as the horse had lost concentration. He said the horse had merely brushed the rail. There had not been full contact, and the horse had not seen the rail.
[7] Mr George stated that the charge against the appellant was not based on the fact that he was not looking, as had been found the committee, but that he had rode carelessly in allowing his mount to shift inwards and to come into contact with the rail. He said the breach was unusual in that the appellant had caused no interference to other runners as a result of his carelessness. He said the steward’s case had never revolved around alleged interference to other runners when SEAFLYTE had shifted out early in the run home but was based solely on the allegation that the appellant had caused interference to his own runner by contacting the running rail. He said had the appellant stopped riding and straightened his mount, there would had been no allegation of carelessness.
[8] The respondent was asked by this tribunal to comment on the appellant’s statement that he was intending to use the running rail to guide the horse. Mr George replied that this was certainly not unheard of, but he was of the opinion that to do so knowing the attributes of this horse with regard to concentration was most unwise. He said he would have thought a rider would be especially cautious in these circumstances. He said SEAFLYTE had brushed the rail because of pressure being placed on the horse by the appellant. He emphasised that, in his view, the appellant was steering the horse into the rail without having full control of the horse. He said the appellant was using the whip and allowing the horse of its own accord to get to the rail.
[9] Mr George further stated that when SEAFLYTE had moved out the appellant had stopped riding and had straightened the horse, and he should have done so again when the horse started drifting inwards to the rail. By not so doing, he alleged the appellant was careless. He pointed out on the video that at the time the horse was drifting in some three to four horse widths, the appellant was riding it with vigour and using the whip. It was under “a hard ride”, he said. He stated the horse was showing a tendency to run away from the whip under pressure and this resulted in inwards movement as the whip was held in the appellant’s right hand. He emphasised the appellant should have relieved the pressure by stopping the use of the whip.
[10] The respondent emphasised that whether SEAFLYTE was on the rail for one or two strides was irrelevant as the appellant’s carelessness lay in his not straightening the horse. He reiterated that although the appellant appeared to have put the horse on the rail as a consequence of choice, he was not in complete control of the horse when he allowed it to drift across.
[11] Mr Holmes summarised his case by stating he firmly believed a charge of careless riding in this situation was unfounded, unproven and unfair in the sense that it had, or had the potential to, affect his reputation as a rider with trainers and the public. Even if this appeal was successful, he said, the key information the racing public would take from the issue would be his fall and subsequent disputed charge of careless riding. He believed the charge of his not looking where he was going had a similar potential, and again this was a strongly disputed or unproven point.
[12] The appellant concluded by stating it was his belief that a combination of the horse's concentration issues, his lack of vision with a shadow roll as well as blinkers, plus his justified exhaustion saw him dramatically over-react to his rear leg scraping the running rail. The appellant’s upward momentum and the horse’s awkward step resulted in a serious fall, the only positive being that it thankfully did not happen a stride later. This was an accident, a mis-step, a serious embarrassment perhaps, but he did not believe it was careless riding.
Reasons
[13] In dismissing the appeal, we are of the view that the appellant was careless in permitting his mount to drift inwards some three horse widths to the rail in the concluding stages of the race. He may have decided to use the rail as a guide, as he submits, but it is clear that the inwards movement was the result of SEAFLYTE responding to his use of the whip rather that the appellant moving the horse to the rail, with the horse at all times under his control.
[13] In dismissing the appeal, we are of the view that the appellant was careless in permitting his mount to drift inwards some three horse widths to the rail in the concluding stages of the race. He may have decided to use the rail as a guide, as he submits, but it is clear that the inwards movement was the result of SEAFLYTE responding to his use of the whip rather that the appellant moving the horse to the rail, with the horse at all times under his control.
[14] A factor that this tribunal believes to be decisive in finding the appellant to be in breach of the rule is his continued use of the whip on SEAFLYTE immediately prior to the horse coming into contact with the running rail. It is our belief that the appellant by continuing to use the whip at this time, with the knowledge SEAFLYTE was running inwards and away from the whip, was careless in that his actions were in fact likely to cause a horse that was having concentration problems to react adversely. This SEAFLYTE certainly did by appearing to want to climb over the rail after brushing it. It may be the fact that this portion of the rail was black contributed to this but we note that SEAFLYTE had successfully handled earlier stages of the race where the rail had also been black, although we accept the horse was not hard up against the rail at that time.
[15] A matter of further concern to this tribunal is that the appellant allowed the horse to drift to the rail and come into contact with it when he not only knew SEAFLYTE had concentration difficulties but also had limited vision as a consequence of the gear (shadow roll and blinkers) the horse was wearing. This should have alerted the appellant to the likelihood of panic by the horse when making contact with the rail.
[16] If it assists the appellant, we are content to state that the fact he was allegedly not looking where he was steering SEAFLYTE does not form any part of our decision to dismiss the appeal and to find the charge is proved. We are satisfied that his style is to crouch low in the saddle and to look between the ears of the horse. We accept he was so riding on this occasion. Unfortunately, he also chose to allow SEAFLYTE to move to the rail and to come into contact with it.
[17] We were concerned also by the appellant’s response to questioning by this tribunal as to why he did not stop riding SEAFLYTE and straighten the horse. That response was that he did not want to lose momentum. We see this as going to the crux of the appellant’s carelessness. He allowed SEAFLYTE to move inwards and make contact with the rail in the hope that the rail would straighten the horse without the loss of momentum, rather than taking the measure required by the rules, which was to straighten the horse before again riding it out to the line.
Penalty:
[18] We indicated to the parties on the day that Mr Holmes’s appeal had been unsuccessful and that our reasons would be delivered in written form in due course. We then invited the parties to address us on the issue of whether the penalty of five days’ suspension was excessive.
[19] Mr Holmes stated he believed the penalty was harsh and would result in his experiencing a significant loss of income. When questioned by this tribunal as to the number of rides he would usually have at a meeting, he replied “two or three”. He asked this tribunal to consider the imposition of a lesser period of suspension and to impose, in addition, a fine.
[20] Mr George produced the appellant’s record, which he described as “good”. Mr Holmes had one previous breach of this rule this season, on 11 December, when he was suspended for four days. The respondent asked us to consider that this was a Group 3 race with a $70,000 stake. He said that through the appellant’s carelessness the horse had lost the opportunity to figure in the finish of the race. Thus the consequences of the appellant’s carelessness extended beyond those suffered by the appellant himself and included the connections of the horse and those persons who had invested on the horse at the TAB.
[21] Mr George stated he believed the five day suspension was an appropriate penalty and asked us not to impose a fine as that would not have the necessary deterrent effect.
[22] Having regard to the submissions of the parties and, in particular, that this was a Group 3 race and the actions of the appellant had clearly cost the connections and those that invested on the horse, we believe the five day suspension imposed by the raceday committee was an appropriate penalty. We do not believe that a fine plus suspension is an adequate response to the seriousness of the breach, which we view as being mid range. We take into account the fact that the appellant did not accept rides at Foxton on Wednesday 4 May due to his suspension and the fact that a stay of penalty had not been granted at that time. The suspension of his licence to ride is to commence after racing on Saturday 7 May and is to conclude at the end of racing on 14 May.
[23] Mr George indicated that he did not seek costs, but submitted an award in favour of the Judicial Control Authority was appropriate. Mr Holmes asked that the award of costs be as a low as possible.
[24] We do not believe this appeal is frivolous. We acknowledge the sincerity of the appellant’s belief that he was not careless. We do not see the function of costs as being to indemnify the successful party or to cover fully the costs of the Judicial Control Authority. We believe a modest award is appropriate and order that the appellant pay the sum of $300 to the Judicial Control Authority.
Professor Geoff Hall Richard Seabrook
Chairman Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 14/04/2011
Publish Date: 14/04/2011
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: f744c5d8819274f1059db085e6d6f0a2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 14/04/2011
hearing_title: Appeal P Holmes v RIU 6 May 2011 - Decision 13 May 2011
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Appearances : Appellant in person
Respondent in person
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[1] The appellant, Mr Holmes, was found to be in breach of R 638(1)(d) by a raceday committee in respect of his ride on SEAFLYTE in race 8 at the HAWKES BAY meeting at Hastings on 23 April last. The information alleged that Mr Holmes had ridden carelessly over the final stages when he allowed his mount to shift when being ridden with vigour resulting in him hitting the rail and becoming dislodged. His licence was suspended for five riding days. Mr Holmes appeals against both the finding that he was in breach of the rule and the penalty imposed.
[2] The appeal proceeded by way of rehearing based on the evidence adduced before the raceday judicial committee. Neither party sought leave to introduce new evidence.
[3] We indicated to the parties that there is no presumption that the decision appealed against is correct and that we would apply our own independent judgment to the facts of the case after hearing from the parties. We further stated that we would reach our own conclusions as to whether the evidence supported a finding that the breach is proved. With respect to this, we stated we would apply the civil standard of the balance of probabilities but in determining whether we were satisfied as to this standard, we would have regard to the fact that careless riding is not a minor charge and that the suspension of the appellant’s licence to ride was a likely consequence were his appeal to be unsuccessful.
[4] Mr Holmes stated his appeal was based on his belief that a combination of circumstances resulted in his fall within “the shadows of the post”, and that these circumstances in themselves did not constitute careless riding, which the judicial committee had determined was hinged on a lack of attention or thought. The committee on the day described this as "an unusual charge of careless riding", summarising their case by stating: "Simply put, Mr Holmes was not looking where he was going." He said he disagreed with this finding in the strongest fashion.
Submissions
[5] Mr Holmes then made the following detailed submissions:
“1. I firmly believe I gave Seaflyte every opportunity to win the Group 3 Tumu ITM Hawke’s Bay Cup. Following instructions I took him to the front early and attempted to dictate the pace from there. When we entered the straight I applied more pressure and the horse began to drift from the rail, eventually moving three horse widths out and into the path of two challenging runners. If there was any part of my ride that could be described as careless, perhaps it came in this outward movement.
2. In order to not further risk interfering with these runners, I straightened Seaflyte and drove for the line. At this point Seaflyte drifted towards the rail and as I was aware there was considerable room back to the nearest runner on the rail, I chose to go with this and try for the win rather than stopping his momentum and in doing so to certainly be beaten. At the point immediately prior to the incident I was confident Seaflyte was going to win or place in the race.
3. Seaflyte's rear leg made slight contact with the running rail. I have had this happen to horses many times through my ten seasons of riding, and in virtually every instance the horse either moves out or uses the rail as a boundary and runs on. Seaflyte however reacted in a most unpredictable way and almost attempted to climb the rail. This reaction occurred at the very second my own momentum was moving up on the horse and the result was that I was catapulted over the rail. Physics played an unfortunate part in the incident I believe as opposed to carelessness.
4. In hindsight I consider myself very fortunate that this incident did not take place a stride later in which case I would have been catapulted into the racing centre's winning post structure. This would certainly have resulted in far more serious life or career threatening injuries being suffered, and if that had been the case, would a charge of careless riding still have been levied against me?
5. At all stages I was aware of where I was on the track. The riding style I was taught involves staying low on the horse's back with forward vision gained looking through the horse's ears. I was also aware of where I was with regard to the running rail. I strongly dispute the committee's contention that I was not looking where I was going and cannot understand how they could reach such a conclusion of any rider in the front of the field in the final strides of a feature race.
6. If a lack of vision was a cause as the committee infer, it is my belief that it was Seaflyte that was suffering, not me. Seaflyte raced in blinkers with a shadow roll. The combined effect is dramatically reduced vision and almost no peripheral vision at all. When Seaflyte's rear leg touched the rail, she reacted to something she could not see by putting in the awkward step. I am not a veterinary expert however I have ridden enough horses with every piece of equipment on, and this combination is the most restrictive vision-wise for horses in my opinion. Similarly I do not have great knowledge of how horses may interpret dramatic colour changes on running rails, however the possibility that the scrape leading to a restricted glance at a now black rail could be a reason for Seaflyte's reaction must exist.
7. This was my first ride on Seaflyte. Trainer Mr Hillis advised me prior to the race that the horse had concentration issues, and this was evident on his way to the start. Taking him to the front was the planned solution to this possibility and this saw Seaflyte in a winning position at the 50 metre mark.
8. Following the race I was able to review the race and fall with his trainer Mr Hillis and Mr Devine, Seaflyte's owner. Both gentlemen assured me they saw no fault in my ride and both offered me the ride on Seaflyte in his next (at that time) planned start, the Rotorua Cup.”
[6] In response to questioning from this tribunal, the appellant affirmed his statement to the committee on the day that SEAFLYTE had shied during his preliminary and had baulked at the green box near the 800 metres. He acknowledged that it was not possible to see this from the video. He also agreed that the horse had moved from two or three horse widths off the rail to the rail and that he was striking the horse as it drifted towards the rail. He said he was intending to use the rail to straighten the horse and he demonstrated that, in his view, the horse had followed the rail for two strides before he fell. When asked whether he still believed SEAFLYTE had ducked in sharply, he replied “No”. He said the horse had gradually shifted both out and in, in the straight, as the horse had lost concentration. He said the horse had merely brushed the rail. There had not been full contact, and the horse had not seen the rail.
[7] Mr George stated that the charge against the appellant was not based on the fact that he was not looking, as had been found the committee, but that he had rode carelessly in allowing his mount to shift inwards and to come into contact with the rail. He said the breach was unusual in that the appellant had caused no interference to other runners as a result of his carelessness. He said the steward’s case had never revolved around alleged interference to other runners when SEAFLYTE had shifted out early in the run home but was based solely on the allegation that the appellant had caused interference to his own runner by contacting the running rail. He said had the appellant stopped riding and straightened his mount, there would had been no allegation of carelessness.
[8] The respondent was asked by this tribunal to comment on the appellant’s statement that he was intending to use the running rail to guide the horse. Mr George replied that this was certainly not unheard of, but he was of the opinion that to do so knowing the attributes of this horse with regard to concentration was most unwise. He said he would have thought a rider would be especially cautious in these circumstances. He said SEAFLYTE had brushed the rail because of pressure being placed on the horse by the appellant. He emphasised that, in his view, the appellant was steering the horse into the rail without having full control of the horse. He said the appellant was using the whip and allowing the horse of its own accord to get to the rail.
[9] Mr George further stated that when SEAFLYTE had moved out the appellant had stopped riding and had straightened the horse, and he should have done so again when the horse started drifting inwards to the rail. By not so doing, he alleged the appellant was careless. He pointed out on the video that at the time the horse was drifting in some three to four horse widths, the appellant was riding it with vigour and using the whip. It was under “a hard ride”, he said. He stated the horse was showing a tendency to run away from the whip under pressure and this resulted in inwards movement as the whip was held in the appellant’s right hand. He emphasised the appellant should have relieved the pressure by stopping the use of the whip.
[10] The respondent emphasised that whether SEAFLYTE was on the rail for one or two strides was irrelevant as the appellant’s carelessness lay in his not straightening the horse. He reiterated that although the appellant appeared to have put the horse on the rail as a consequence of choice, he was not in complete control of the horse when he allowed it to drift across.
[11] Mr Holmes summarised his case by stating he firmly believed a charge of careless riding in this situation was unfounded, unproven and unfair in the sense that it had, or had the potential to, affect his reputation as a rider with trainers and the public. Even if this appeal was successful, he said, the key information the racing public would take from the issue would be his fall and subsequent disputed charge of careless riding. He believed the charge of his not looking where he was going had a similar potential, and again this was a strongly disputed or unproven point.
[12] The appellant concluded by stating it was his belief that a combination of the horse's concentration issues, his lack of vision with a shadow roll as well as blinkers, plus his justified exhaustion saw him dramatically over-react to his rear leg scraping the running rail. The appellant’s upward momentum and the horse’s awkward step resulted in a serious fall, the only positive being that it thankfully did not happen a stride later. This was an accident, a mis-step, a serious embarrassment perhaps, but he did not believe it was careless riding.
Reasons
[13] In dismissing the appeal, we are of the view that the appellant was careless in permitting his mount to drift inwards some three horse widths to the rail in the concluding stages of the race. He may have decided to use the rail as a guide, as he submits, but it is clear that the inwards movement was the result of SEAFLYTE responding to his use of the whip rather that the appellant moving the horse to the rail, with the horse at all times under his control.
[13] In dismissing the appeal, we are of the view that the appellant was careless in permitting his mount to drift inwards some three horse widths to the rail in the concluding stages of the race. He may have decided to use the rail as a guide, as he submits, but it is clear that the inwards movement was the result of SEAFLYTE responding to his use of the whip rather that the appellant moving the horse to the rail, with the horse at all times under his control.
[14] A factor that this tribunal believes to be decisive in finding the appellant to be in breach of the rule is his continued use of the whip on SEAFLYTE immediately prior to the horse coming into contact with the running rail. It is our belief that the appellant by continuing to use the whip at this time, with the knowledge SEAFLYTE was running inwards and away from the whip, was careless in that his actions were in fact likely to cause a horse that was having concentration problems to react adversely. This SEAFLYTE certainly did by appearing to want to climb over the rail after brushing it. It may be the fact that this portion of the rail was black contributed to this but we note that SEAFLYTE had successfully handled earlier stages of the race where the rail had also been black, although we accept the horse was not hard up against the rail at that time.
[15] A matter of further concern to this tribunal is that the appellant allowed the horse to drift to the rail and come into contact with it when he not only knew SEAFLYTE had concentration difficulties but also had limited vision as a consequence of the gear (shadow roll and blinkers) the horse was wearing. This should have alerted the appellant to the likelihood of panic by the horse when making contact with the rail.
[16] If it assists the appellant, we are content to state that the fact he was allegedly not looking where he was steering SEAFLYTE does not form any part of our decision to dismiss the appeal and to find the charge is proved. We are satisfied that his style is to crouch low in the saddle and to look between the ears of the horse. We accept he was so riding on this occasion. Unfortunately, he also chose to allow SEAFLYTE to move to the rail and to come into contact with it.
[17] We were concerned also by the appellant’s response to questioning by this tribunal as to why he did not stop riding SEAFLYTE and straighten the horse. That response was that he did not want to lose momentum. We see this as going to the crux of the appellant’s carelessness. He allowed SEAFLYTE to move inwards and make contact with the rail in the hope that the rail would straighten the horse without the loss of momentum, rather than taking the measure required by the rules, which was to straighten the horse before again riding it out to the line.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[18] We indicated to the parties on the day that Mr Holmes’s appeal had been unsuccessful and that our reasons would be delivered in written form in due course. We then invited the parties to address us on the issue of whether the penalty of five days’ suspension was excessive.
[19] Mr Holmes stated he believed the penalty was harsh and would result in his experiencing a significant loss of income. When questioned by this tribunal as to the number of rides he would usually have at a meeting, he replied “two or three”. He asked this tribunal to consider the imposition of a lesser period of suspension and to impose, in addition, a fine.
[20] Mr George produced the appellant’s record, which he described as “good”. Mr Holmes had one previous breach of this rule this season, on 11 December, when he was suspended for four days. The respondent asked us to consider that this was a Group 3 race with a $70,000 stake. He said that through the appellant’s carelessness the horse had lost the opportunity to figure in the finish of the race. Thus the consequences of the appellant’s carelessness extended beyond those suffered by the appellant himself and included the connections of the horse and those persons who had invested on the horse at the TAB.
[21] Mr George stated he believed the five day suspension was an appropriate penalty and asked us not to impose a fine as that would not have the necessary deterrent effect.
[22] Having regard to the submissions of the parties and, in particular, that this was a Group 3 race and the actions of the appellant had clearly cost the connections and those that invested on the horse, we believe the five day suspension imposed by the raceday committee was an appropriate penalty. We do not believe that a fine plus suspension is an adequate response to the seriousness of the breach, which we view as being mid range. We take into account the fact that the appellant did not accept rides at Foxton on Wednesday 4 May due to his suspension and the fact that a stay of penalty had not been granted at that time. The suspension of his licence to ride is to commence after racing on Saturday 7 May and is to conclude at the end of racing on 14 May.
[23] Mr George indicated that he did not seek costs, but submitted an award in favour of the Judicial Control Authority was appropriate. Mr Holmes asked that the award of costs be as a low as possible.
[24] We do not believe this appeal is frivolous. We acknowledge the sincerity of the appellant’s belief that he was not careless. We do not see the function of costs as being to indemnify the successful party or to cover fully the costs of the Judicial Control Authority. We believe a modest award is appropriate and order that the appellant pay the sum of $300 to the Judicial Control Authority.
Professor Geoff Hall Richard Seabrook
Chairman Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: APPEALS TRIBUNAL Professor Geoff Hall (Chairman) and Mr Richard Seabrook
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: