Appeal S Golding v RIU – Decision dated 2 December 2015 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA12314
Decision:
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
IN CHRISTCHURCH
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN MR STEVEN GOLDING
Appellant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Information: A6733
Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr K Hales, Member
Appearing: Mr D Dunn, assisting the Appellant
Mr N Ydgren for the Respondent
Date of hearing: 24 November 2015
Date of decision: 26 November 2015
Reasons for decision delivered: 2 December 2015
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[1] Mr Golding has appealed against the decision of a raceday Judicial Committee on 13 November last that he was in breach of the careless driving rule and against the penalty that was subsequently imposed of three days’ suspension.
[2] Rule 869(3)(b provides: “No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly”.
[3] At the hearing on 24 November last, we indicated that we would convey the outcome of the appeal to the parties on 26 November, which we did, and would deliver a full written decision in due course. This is that decision.
The race
[4] The hearing commenced with Mr Ydgren showing a number of videos of the race and identifying the horses.
[5] The race in question was the Hellers’ Dominion Trot at Addington Raceway on 13 November. Mr Golding was the driver of HARRYSUL, which is trained by his employers, G & N Hope.
[6] HARRYSUL broke at the start of this race. He lost considerable ground and caught the field near the 2400 metres.
[7] Near the 1030 metres STENT, driven by Mr C DeFilippi, improved to a 3 wide position without cover and began to advance its position.
[8] The horse following him was KINCASLOUGH driven by Mr J Dunn.
[9] The horse to the inside of KINCASLOUGH was SPRINGBANK SAM driven by Mr B Williamson.
[10] Immediately behind SPRINGBANK SAM was JAGS INVASION driven by Mr N Williamson. And behind KINCASLOUGH was PRIME POWER, driven by Mr T Mitchell.
[11] Following JAGS INVASION was Mr Golding’s horse HARRYSUL. HARRYSUL improved to the inside of JAGS INVASION when that runner angled a short distance outwards. He was able to attempt this initially due to the field racing a considerable distance away from the pylons.
[12] As the field entered the bend, the body of the field shifted inwards, leaving Mr Golding positioned between the pylons and JAGS INVASION.
[13] HARRYSUL raced in restricted room, struck and raced over pylons, and then broke, losing its chance.
The Appellant’s submissions
[14] Mr D Dunn assisted Mr Golding. He first called Mr J Dunn to give evidence. He stated that just before the 1000 metres he was 3 wide momentarily before he successfully pushed Mr B Williamson back down. He said Mr B Williamson was 2 1/2 wide for the majority of the race and that was why he was 3 wide.
[15] When questioned by Mr Ydgren as to when he was 3 wide, he said it was only briefly and it was when he was behind Mr C DeFilippi who was mounting a run 3 wide. He agreed with Mr Ydgren that it was never his intention to follow Mr DeFilippi. When Mr Ydgren pointed out he was clearly inside Mr DeFilippi, he responded that Mr DeFilippi had been extra cautious and was 3 1/2 wide for a time. Mr Ydgren suggested to Mr Dunn that he was only ever 2 1/2 wide. Mr Dunn disagreed and reiterated he believed he was 3 wide for a short time.
[16] When Mr Ydgren pointed out that Mr N Williamson, who was following Mr B Williamson, had said in his evidence to the Judicial Committee that he was never 2 wide, but 1 1/2 wide, Mr Dunn said he disagreed with that evidence.
[17] Mr Dunn concluded his evidence by stating had he been in Mr Golding’s cart, he too would have improved to the inside of Mr N Williamson. He added that in his opinion Mr Golding had hesitated before taking the run, which indicated Mr Golding had thought about it and decided there was room. He did not believe Mr Golding had gone inside the running line. When questioned, he said he was very experienced driver and had driven about 800 winners.
[18] Mr D Dunn submitted that the nub of the Appellant’s case was that Mr J Dunn had moved 3 wide on the track and Mr T Mitchell, who was following Mr Dunn, was thus 3 wide as well. Both Mr Williamsons were thus 2 wide and Mr Golding was therefore able to take a run to the inside of Mr N Williamson. He said there was no way Mr Golding could have anticipated that Mr J Dunn would push Mr B Williamson back down and that Mr Mitchell would similarly push Mr N Williamson down. He said Mr J Dunn was 3 wide for some 10 metres and this was sufficient time for Mr Golding to progress to the inside of Mr N Williamson as there was a run there. He believed Mr Mitchell should have remained 3 wide rather than shifting back down and causing Mr Golding to run out of room.
[19] Mr Dunn stated that camera angles were bad but it was his contention that Mr N Williamson was 2 wide and that in improving to the inside of Mr Williamson, Mr Golding was merely following the running line.
[20] Mr Golding stated he saw the opportunity to improve his horse on the inside of Mr N Williamson and decided to take it. He emphasised he had waited until he believed there was a complete gap for him to progress into. He said Mr N Williamson was following Mr B Williamson everywhere so they were both 2 wide. He said he was not going inside the running line but was following the line of Mr M Williamson.
The Respondent’s submissions
[21] Mr Ydgren submitted that the Judicial Committee on the day were correct in their finding that Mr Golding showed “bad judgement and has driven carelessly, in that, his actions on this occasion, were not those of a reasonable and competent driver”.
[22] Mr Ydgren stated that Mr Golding had attempted to improve into a run that had not fully formed and had wrongly anticipated that it would open for him. He did not disagree that there was sufficient room between the pylons and Mr N Williamson’s cart into which Mr Golding could improve. He said there was no contact with the pylons for some distance, but it was inevitable the field would shift back down as this was simply the general racing pattern as horses came into a bend.
[23] Mr Ydgren described the race: As the field raced past the 1030 metres STENT shifted outwards and then improved forward. STENT was the favourite. It was a Group One race worth $255,000. He said it would have been very surprising to see anyone follow STENT forward at this time as it would be reasonable to expect that once the runner following STENT reached the parked position, Mr DeFilippi would be very unlikely to surrender. He would have more to lose than gain by taking cover somewhere near the 600 metres mark.
[24] Mr B Williamson shifted his runner outwards a small amount in anticipation of Mr J Dunn following STENT forward. When Mr Dunn did not follow STENT forward Mr B Williamson returned SPRINGBANK SAM to his position on the running line. He emphasised Mr Dunn made no attempt to follow STENT forward and for a short time he was taken off his running line but at no stage was he shifted to a 3 wide position.
[25] Mr Ydgren reinforced this point by stating that Mr J Dunn’s horse KINCASLOUGH was briefly shifted to a position slightly wider than the 2 wide position it had been racing in. It did not get to a 3 wide position. He emphasised this was supported by the evidence of Mr N Williamson on the night and drew the Tribunal’s attention to a passage in the Judicial Committee’s decision where Mr N Williamson was asked if he was able to demonstrate on the films where Mr B Williamson was fully established on the back of Mr Butt. Mr Williamson had replied, “No, I can’t but I feel I never stated I believed that Mr [B] Williamson was ever in the one off line”. To Mr Ydgren’s proposition that Mr B Williamson had anticipated Mr J Dunn going 3 wide”, he replied, “Yeah. Correct”. And in response to his statement, “So then that would mean that Mr Dunn is perhaps, I think you said, 2 1/2 well 1/2 a cart width wider so Mr Williamson would be the same distance” he said, “Correct. Yip”. And then when asked, “Yourself as well”? he said, “Ah yip”. And again when asked “Right, so there wouldn’t be a full cart width inside the established running line for Mr Golding to improve into. He would also be anticipating that run fully opening for him?” “Correct, yes. I think what you would say is, the inside running line is, as you state, racing 1/2 a cart width off the fence, so is there a full run for Mr Golding and his horse to get through on the inside, yes, but as you are saying that the, not the, it is not room for him to get through to the fully established running line, not running line, inside line if you like.” Mr Ydgren said this was a very clear and emphatic statement from a very experienced driver.
[26] Mr Ydgren then summarised this aspect of his case by saying that if Mr N Williamson did not get to the one off line, there would never be enough room in the running line for Mr Golding and his cart to become established. Mr Golding could shift there due to the field racing off the pylons but he could not establish or secure a position for himself because there was not one there for him.
[27] Mr Ydgren emphasised that the Appellant’s carelessness lay in his tactic of improving to the inside of the field without room, when to safely take up a position without causing interference to himself or another runner was “bordering on impossible. Even more so when you consider the field’s position in relation to a bend.”
[28] Mr Ydgren summed up the Respondent’s case by stating that Mr Golding had anticipated a run opening for him. It was a risky manoeuvre. It did not eventuate and he had cost himself, the connections and the punters who had invested in him. The Judicial Committee on the day was correct in its assessment of the incident and was correct to uphold the charge.
Decision
[29] At about the 1030 metres mark STENT moved 3 wide on the track and progressed forward. At this time Mr J Dunn was briefly forced wider on the track when Mr B Williamson, who was racing on the inside of him, anticipated that Mr Dunn would follow STENT forward in the 3 wide line. When Mr Dunn did not follow STENT forward SPRINGBANK SAM was returned to its position on the running line. In his evidence to us at the appeal hearing Mr Dunn said that was never his intention to follow STENT. Although Mr Dunn has said he was 3 wide momentarily, we do not accept this. It is our view that for a short time he is taken off his running line but at no stage is he shifted to a 3 wide position.
[30] In so finding, we note the camera angles, while helpful, are not conclusive. They clearly demonstrate that Mr B Williamson has shifted SPRINGBANK SAM outwards a small amount in anticipation of Mr Dunn following STENT forwards, but do not enable an accurate assessment to be made of this distance. Significantly, Mr N Williamson, who was following SPRINGBANK SAM, gave clear evidence before the Judicial Committee that he never believed he was at any time 2 wide. This too, as we have stated, is our view of the matter. At best the Williamson brothers were 1 1/2 wide.
[31] We accept a field will often race a distance away from the line of the pylons. Indeed, this will generally happen in every race. When the field races towards, into, or on a bend it will shift inwards. This is a standard racing pattern and one of which most, if not all, drivers are, or should be, acutely aware.
[32] We are satisfied there was never a run for Mr Golding to the inside of Mr N Williamson, especially with the bend looming. The field was always going to come back done to the markers, with the consequence Mr Golding would run out of room. This was what in fact occurred with HARRYSUL hitting pylons and eventually breaking.
[33] We thus agree with Mr Ydgren’s submission that Mr Golding has attempted to improve into a run that has not fully formed and has wrongly anticipated that it would open for him. In so doing, the Appellant has driven carelessly, in that he has not demonstrated the care and attention we would expect of a reasonable and competent driver.
[34] Mr Golding’s appeal against the finding of the raceday Judicial Committee that he was in breach of the careless driving rule is dismissed.
Penalty submissions
[35] Mr Ydgren produced Mr Golding’s record. This season Mr Golding has had 97 drives for 5 wins. Last season he had 417 (42) and the season before that he had 237 (9). He commented the Appellant is a very busy Junior Horseman and is one of the South Island’s more experienced Junior Horsemen.
[36] Mr Golding has one previous breach of this rule on 6 December 2014. This is bordering on one year ago and due to the busy year Mr Golding had had in the sulky, the RIU viewed his record as excellent.
[37] Mr Ydgren stated that the Stewards viewed the level of carelessness and the consequences as mid-level.
[38] The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees recommends a starting point of a 3-day suspension for careless driving in a race worth more than $40,000. The race at issue was the Dominion Handicap, a Group One race worth $255,000. The Stewards sought confirmation of the Judicial Committee’s penalty decision that Mr Golding’s Junior Horseman’s licence be suspended for a period of 3 racedays.
[39] Mr Dunn emphasised that Mr Golding was a junior driver and the consequence of the breach, were it to be found, had no bearing on a dividend bearing position. Mr Golding’s actions had not cost those who had invested on the horse or its connections.
[40] Mr Golding emphasised his very good record and the cost to him of his mounting this appeal. After taking time to discuss the matter with Mr Dunn, he indicated he would prefer a suspension rather than a substantial fine, as he was a junior horseman with a house and a mortgage.
[41] Mr Golding reiterated that he believed there was a run there for HARRYSUL when he progressed to the inside of Mr N Williamson and, were the Tribunal to find he was in breach, the breach was only at a very low level.
Penalty
[42] We believe the breach is at the lower end of mid-range culpability. Mr Golding anticipated that the Williamson brothers would shift 2 wide, when in fact they shifted only 1 1/2 horse widths before Mr J Dunn forced Mr B Williamson back down and Mr N Williamson followed his brother. It was an error of judgment by Mr Golding in the heat of the moment, but not one at the top end of the scale of careless driving.
[43] The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a 3-day suspension for careless driving in a race worth more than $40,000. Rule 1114(2)(a) requires us to have regard to the fact that this was a Group One race. However, the only horse affected by Mr Golding’s error was his own, HARRYSUL, which due to being slow away at the start of the race was positioned on the pylons near the rear of the field with less than a 1000 metres to run. The horse was thus most unlikely to have finished in a dividend bearing position.
[44] It is evident that the Appellant is one of this country’s busiest junior drivers and we agree with the RIU that his record can be described as excellent.
[45] Mr Golding has already served one day of his suspension. He has drives over the weekend of 28 and 29 November and he has asked for deferment of his penalty. In a minute dated 19 November, we granted a stay of penalty pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, and in a further minute dated 26 November we extended this stay until the end of racing on Sunday 29 November.
[46] Mr Golding has to be held accountable for his actions. We impose one further day’s suspension, Invercargill on 4 December. Mr Golding is suspended from driving from the end of racing on 29 November up to and including 4 December.
[47] We have reduced Mr Golding’s penalty by one day. This is partly because of our assessment of his degree of culpability (and we have not overlooked the fact this was a Group One race) but is primarily in recognition of the fact that this appeal has cost him the sum of $450.
[48] The penalty imposed upon Mr Golding has thus been reduced because of the particular circumstances arising as a consequence of his appeal. We otherwise believe the penalty imposed on raceday by the Judicial Committee was appropriate.
[49] Costs
[50] The appeal was ably argued and was far from being without merit. We are aware that Mr Golding has paid a $250 filing fee to the JCA and the RIU seeks the sum of $200 to cover disbursements (the cost of transcribing the raceday judicial decision). They do not otherwise seek an order for costs. We order that the Appellant pay the sum of $200 to the RIU.
[51] We do not order costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the particular circumstances that pertain in this case.
Dated at Dunedin this 2nd day of December 2015.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 03/12/2015
Publish Date: 03/12/2015
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: 4d1a58f45a84f2319a39ae046796e63e
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 03/12/2015
hearing_title: Appeal S Golding v RIU - Decision dated 2 December 2015 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF
THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
IN CHRISTCHURCH
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN MR STEVEN GOLDING
Appellant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Information: A6733
Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr K Hales, Member
Appearing: Mr D Dunn, assisting the Appellant
Mr N Ydgren for the Respondent
Date of hearing: 24 November 2015
Date of decision: 26 November 2015
Reasons for decision delivered: 2 December 2015
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[1] Mr Golding has appealed against the decision of a raceday Judicial Committee on 13 November last that he was in breach of the careless driving rule and against the penalty that was subsequently imposed of three days’ suspension.
[2] Rule 869(3)(b provides: “No horseman in any race shall drive carelessly”.
[3] At the hearing on 24 November last, we indicated that we would convey the outcome of the appeal to the parties on 26 November, which we did, and would deliver a full written decision in due course. This is that decision.
The race
[4] The hearing commenced with Mr Ydgren showing a number of videos of the race and identifying the horses.
[5] The race in question was the Hellers’ Dominion Trot at Addington Raceway on 13 November. Mr Golding was the driver of HARRYSUL, which is trained by his employers, G & N Hope.
[6] HARRYSUL broke at the start of this race. He lost considerable ground and caught the field near the 2400 metres.
[7] Near the 1030 metres STENT, driven by Mr C DeFilippi, improved to a 3 wide position without cover and began to advance its position.
[8] The horse following him was KINCASLOUGH driven by Mr J Dunn.
[9] The horse to the inside of KINCASLOUGH was SPRINGBANK SAM driven by Mr B Williamson.
[10] Immediately behind SPRINGBANK SAM was JAGS INVASION driven by Mr N Williamson. And behind KINCASLOUGH was PRIME POWER, driven by Mr T Mitchell.
[11] Following JAGS INVASION was Mr Golding’s horse HARRYSUL. HARRYSUL improved to the inside of JAGS INVASION when that runner angled a short distance outwards. He was able to attempt this initially due to the field racing a considerable distance away from the pylons.
[12] As the field entered the bend, the body of the field shifted inwards, leaving Mr Golding positioned between the pylons and JAGS INVASION.
[13] HARRYSUL raced in restricted room, struck and raced over pylons, and then broke, losing its chance.
The Appellant’s submissions
[14] Mr D Dunn assisted Mr Golding. He first called Mr J Dunn to give evidence. He stated that just before the 1000 metres he was 3 wide momentarily before he successfully pushed Mr B Williamson back down. He said Mr B Williamson was 2 1/2 wide for the majority of the race and that was why he was 3 wide.
[15] When questioned by Mr Ydgren as to when he was 3 wide, he said it was only briefly and it was when he was behind Mr C DeFilippi who was mounting a run 3 wide. He agreed with Mr Ydgren that it was never his intention to follow Mr DeFilippi. When Mr Ydgren pointed out he was clearly inside Mr DeFilippi, he responded that Mr DeFilippi had been extra cautious and was 3 1/2 wide for a time. Mr Ydgren suggested to Mr Dunn that he was only ever 2 1/2 wide. Mr Dunn disagreed and reiterated he believed he was 3 wide for a short time.
[16] When Mr Ydgren pointed out that Mr N Williamson, who was following Mr B Williamson, had said in his evidence to the Judicial Committee that he was never 2 wide, but 1 1/2 wide, Mr Dunn said he disagreed with that evidence.
[17] Mr Dunn concluded his evidence by stating had he been in Mr Golding’s cart, he too would have improved to the inside of Mr N Williamson. He added that in his opinion Mr Golding had hesitated before taking the run, which indicated Mr Golding had thought about it and decided there was room. He did not believe Mr Golding had gone inside the running line. When questioned, he said he was very experienced driver and had driven about 800 winners.
[18] Mr D Dunn submitted that the nub of the Appellant’s case was that Mr J Dunn had moved 3 wide on the track and Mr T Mitchell, who was following Mr Dunn, was thus 3 wide as well. Both Mr Williamsons were thus 2 wide and Mr Golding was therefore able to take a run to the inside of Mr N Williamson. He said there was no way Mr Golding could have anticipated that Mr J Dunn would push Mr B Williamson back down and that Mr Mitchell would similarly push Mr N Williamson down. He said Mr J Dunn was 3 wide for some 10 metres and this was sufficient time for Mr Golding to progress to the inside of Mr N Williamson as there was a run there. He believed Mr Mitchell should have remained 3 wide rather than shifting back down and causing Mr Golding to run out of room.
[19] Mr Dunn stated that camera angles were bad but it was his contention that Mr N Williamson was 2 wide and that in improving to the inside of Mr Williamson, Mr Golding was merely following the running line.
[20] Mr Golding stated he saw the opportunity to improve his horse on the inside of Mr N Williamson and decided to take it. He emphasised he had waited until he believed there was a complete gap for him to progress into. He said Mr N Williamson was following Mr B Williamson everywhere so they were both 2 wide. He said he was not going inside the running line but was following the line of Mr M Williamson.
The Respondent’s submissions
[21] Mr Ydgren submitted that the Judicial Committee on the day were correct in their finding that Mr Golding showed “bad judgement and has driven carelessly, in that, his actions on this occasion, were not those of a reasonable and competent driver”.
[22] Mr Ydgren stated that Mr Golding had attempted to improve into a run that had not fully formed and had wrongly anticipated that it would open for him. He did not disagree that there was sufficient room between the pylons and Mr N Williamson’s cart into which Mr Golding could improve. He said there was no contact with the pylons for some distance, but it was inevitable the field would shift back down as this was simply the general racing pattern as horses came into a bend.
[23] Mr Ydgren described the race: As the field raced past the 1030 metres STENT shifted outwards and then improved forward. STENT was the favourite. It was a Group One race worth $255,000. He said it would have been very surprising to see anyone follow STENT forward at this time as it would be reasonable to expect that once the runner following STENT reached the parked position, Mr DeFilippi would be very unlikely to surrender. He would have more to lose than gain by taking cover somewhere near the 600 metres mark.
[24] Mr B Williamson shifted his runner outwards a small amount in anticipation of Mr J Dunn following STENT forward. When Mr Dunn did not follow STENT forward Mr B Williamson returned SPRINGBANK SAM to his position on the running line. He emphasised Mr Dunn made no attempt to follow STENT forward and for a short time he was taken off his running line but at no stage was he shifted to a 3 wide position.
[25] Mr Ydgren reinforced this point by stating that Mr J Dunn’s horse KINCASLOUGH was briefly shifted to a position slightly wider than the 2 wide position it had been racing in. It did not get to a 3 wide position. He emphasised this was supported by the evidence of Mr N Williamson on the night and drew the Tribunal’s attention to a passage in the Judicial Committee’s decision where Mr N Williamson was asked if he was able to demonstrate on the films where Mr B Williamson was fully established on the back of Mr Butt. Mr Williamson had replied, “No, I can’t but I feel I never stated I believed that Mr [B] Williamson was ever in the one off line”. To Mr Ydgren’s proposition that Mr B Williamson had anticipated Mr J Dunn going 3 wide”, he replied, “Yeah. Correct”. And in response to his statement, “So then that would mean that Mr Dunn is perhaps, I think you said, 2 1/2 well 1/2 a cart width wider so Mr Williamson would be the same distance” he said, “Correct. Yip”. And then when asked, “Yourself as well”? he said, “Ah yip”. And again when asked “Right, so there wouldn’t be a full cart width inside the established running line for Mr Golding to improve into. He would also be anticipating that run fully opening for him?” “Correct, yes. I think what you would say is, the inside running line is, as you state, racing 1/2 a cart width off the fence, so is there a full run for Mr Golding and his horse to get through on the inside, yes, but as you are saying that the, not the, it is not room for him to get through to the fully established running line, not running line, inside line if you like.” Mr Ydgren said this was a very clear and emphatic statement from a very experienced driver.
[26] Mr Ydgren then summarised this aspect of his case by saying that if Mr N Williamson did not get to the one off line, there would never be enough room in the running line for Mr Golding and his cart to become established. Mr Golding could shift there due to the field racing off the pylons but he could not establish or secure a position for himself because there was not one there for him.
[27] Mr Ydgren emphasised that the Appellant’s carelessness lay in his tactic of improving to the inside of the field without room, when to safely take up a position without causing interference to himself or another runner was “bordering on impossible. Even more so when you consider the field’s position in relation to a bend.”
[28] Mr Ydgren summed up the Respondent’s case by stating that Mr Golding had anticipated a run opening for him. It was a risky manoeuvre. It did not eventuate and he had cost himself, the connections and the punters who had invested in him. The Judicial Committee on the day was correct in its assessment of the incident and was correct to uphold the charge.
Decision
[29] At about the 1030 metres mark STENT moved 3 wide on the track and progressed forward. At this time Mr J Dunn was briefly forced wider on the track when Mr B Williamson, who was racing on the inside of him, anticipated that Mr Dunn would follow STENT forward in the 3 wide line. When Mr Dunn did not follow STENT forward SPRINGBANK SAM was returned to its position on the running line. In his evidence to us at the appeal hearing Mr Dunn said that was never his intention to follow STENT. Although Mr Dunn has said he was 3 wide momentarily, we do not accept this. It is our view that for a short time he is taken off his running line but at no stage is he shifted to a 3 wide position.
[30] In so finding, we note the camera angles, while helpful, are not conclusive. They clearly demonstrate that Mr B Williamson has shifted SPRINGBANK SAM outwards a small amount in anticipation of Mr Dunn following STENT forwards, but do not enable an accurate assessment to be made of this distance. Significantly, Mr N Williamson, who was following SPRINGBANK SAM, gave clear evidence before the Judicial Committee that he never believed he was at any time 2 wide. This too, as we have stated, is our view of the matter. At best the Williamson brothers were 1 1/2 wide.
[31] We accept a field will often race a distance away from the line of the pylons. Indeed, this will generally happen in every race. When the field races towards, into, or on a bend it will shift inwards. This is a standard racing pattern and one of which most, if not all, drivers are, or should be, acutely aware.
[32] We are satisfied there was never a run for Mr Golding to the inside of Mr N Williamson, especially with the bend looming. The field was always going to come back done to the markers, with the consequence Mr Golding would run out of room. This was what in fact occurred with HARRYSUL hitting pylons and eventually breaking.
[33] We thus agree with Mr Ydgren’s submission that Mr Golding has attempted to improve into a run that has not fully formed and has wrongly anticipated that it would open for him. In so doing, the Appellant has driven carelessly, in that he has not demonstrated the care and attention we would expect of a reasonable and competent driver.
[34] Mr Golding’s appeal against the finding of the raceday Judicial Committee that he was in breach of the careless driving rule is dismissed.
Penalty submissions
[35] Mr Ydgren produced Mr Golding’s record. This season Mr Golding has had 97 drives for 5 wins. Last season he had 417 (42) and the season before that he had 237 (9). He commented the Appellant is a very busy Junior Horseman and is one of the South Island’s more experienced Junior Horsemen.
[36] Mr Golding has one previous breach of this rule on 6 December 2014. This is bordering on one year ago and due to the busy year Mr Golding had had in the sulky, the RIU viewed his record as excellent.
[37] Mr Ydgren stated that the Stewards viewed the level of carelessness and the consequences as mid-level.
[38] The Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees recommends a starting point of a 3-day suspension for careless driving in a race worth more than $40,000. The race at issue was the Dominion Handicap, a Group One race worth $255,000. The Stewards sought confirmation of the Judicial Committee’s penalty decision that Mr Golding’s Junior Horseman’s licence be suspended for a period of 3 racedays.
[39] Mr Dunn emphasised that Mr Golding was a junior driver and the consequence of the breach, were it to be found, had no bearing on a dividend bearing position. Mr Golding’s actions had not cost those who had invested on the horse or its connections.
[40] Mr Golding emphasised his very good record and the cost to him of his mounting this appeal. After taking time to discuss the matter with Mr Dunn, he indicated he would prefer a suspension rather than a substantial fine, as he was a junior horseman with a house and a mortgage.
[41] Mr Golding reiterated that he believed there was a run there for HARRYSUL when he progressed to the inside of Mr N Williamson and, were the Tribunal to find he was in breach, the breach was only at a very low level.
Penalty
[42] We believe the breach is at the lower end of mid-range culpability. Mr Golding anticipated that the Williamson brothers would shift 2 wide, when in fact they shifted only 1 1/2 horse widths before Mr J Dunn forced Mr B Williamson back down and Mr N Williamson followed his brother. It was an error of judgment by Mr Golding in the heat of the moment, but not one at the top end of the scale of careless driving.
[43] The Penalty Guide recommends a starting point of a 3-day suspension for careless driving in a race worth more than $40,000. Rule 1114(2)(a) requires us to have regard to the fact that this was a Group One race. However, the only horse affected by Mr Golding’s error was his own, HARRYSUL, which due to being slow away at the start of the race was positioned on the pylons near the rear of the field with less than a 1000 metres to run. The horse was thus most unlikely to have finished in a dividend bearing position.
[44] It is evident that the Appellant is one of this country’s busiest junior drivers and we agree with the RIU that his record can be described as excellent.
[45] Mr Golding has already served one day of his suspension. He has drives over the weekend of 28 and 29 November and he has asked for deferment of his penalty. In a minute dated 19 November, we granted a stay of penalty pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, and in a further minute dated 26 November we extended this stay until the end of racing on Sunday 29 November.
[46] Mr Golding has to be held accountable for his actions. We impose one further day’s suspension, Invercargill on 4 December. Mr Golding is suspended from driving from the end of racing on 29 November up to and including 4 December.
[47] We have reduced Mr Golding’s penalty by one day. This is partly because of our assessment of his degree of culpability (and we have not overlooked the fact this was a Group One race) but is primarily in recognition of the fact that this appeal has cost him the sum of $450.
[48] The penalty imposed upon Mr Golding has thus been reduced because of the particular circumstances arising as a consequence of his appeal. We otherwise believe the penalty imposed on raceday by the Judicial Committee was appropriate.
[49] Costs
[50] The appeal was ably argued and was far from being without merit. We are aware that Mr Golding has paid a $250 filing fee to the JCA and the RIU seeks the sum of $200 to cover disbursements (the cost of transcribing the raceday judicial decision). They do not otherwise seek an order for costs. We order that the Appellant pay the sum of $200 to the RIU.
[51] We do not order costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the particular circumstances that pertain in this case.
Dated at Dunedin this 2nd day of December 2015.
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: