Auckland RC – 13 April 2009 –

hearingid: ddd76d0c6870d2005743041dba160bb0

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 13/04/2009

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Auckland RC - 13 April 2009 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following race 6 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) when it was alleged by the informant, Chief Stipendary Steward Mr R Sanders that passing the 200m Mr Innes allowed his mount L’AVANTI to shift in contributing to CHARLOTTE RUSSE (A Calder) having to be checked when tightened for room between his mount and MILL DUCKIE (J Collett) which shifted out.

Following race 6 an information was filed pursuant to Rule 871(1)(d) when it was alleged by the informant, Chief Stipendary Steward Mr R Sanders that passing the 200m Mr Innes allowed his mount L’AVANTI to shift in contributing to CHARLOTTE RUSSE (A Calder) having to be checked when tightened for room between his mount and MILL DUCKIE (J Collett) which shifted out.

Mr Innes did not admit the breach of the rule.

Mr J Oatham demonstrated the videos with emphasis on the head – on view. He showed where at the 200metres CHARLOTTE RUSSE was making a run through a gap in front of it. As she was entering the gap Mr Innes could be seen to allow his mount to move in when not sufficiently clear and contribute to Mr Calder having to check his mount.

In his defense Mr Innes said that in his view he always kept a straight line. He called Mr Calder, the rider of CHARLOTTE RUSSE to give evidence. Mr Innes asked Mr Calder why he had only protested against MILL DUCKIE if ,as Mr Sanders alleged, L’AVANTI had also helped to check his mount by moving in. Mr Calder said that his 1st impression had been that MILL DUCKIE was totally responsible for his problems. Mr Innes placed great emphasis on this point and maintained that he had kept a straight line.

When cross examined by Mr Sanders Mr Calder said that his original reaction to the cause of the interference was incorrect and he did agree that he had received pressure from the outside.

In summing up Mr Sanders said that in his view the evidence clearly showed that Mr Innes had not kept a straight line and he had contributed to the interference by taking the line of Mr Calder when not sufficiently clear.

The committee reviewed all of the evidence including the videos. In its view there is no doubt that, as the head on video clearly shows, Mr Innes moved in at least 1 horse width and contributed to the tightening of Mr Calder. We therefore find him guilty as charged.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS:
Mr Sanders said that Mr Innes had already had an information issued in reference to an incident in Race 1 to which he had admitted the charge. Mr Sanders said that as Mr Innes would be receiving more than 1 sentence for the days racing he would like to make submissions for the penalties to be  concurrent instead of cumulative.. He said that this principal had been coming more common in other jurisdictions and he wished the committee to consider the matter in Mr Innes' case.

It was agreed that the fixing of penalty for this offence by Mr Innes would be adjourned till after the first offence had been dealt with to keep the charges in chronological order.

The hearing was then adjourned.

On the reopening of this hearing to hear submissions Mr Sanders gave Mr Innes’s record which did not read well for the last 2 days racing this was his third offence. Mr Sanders again repeated his submissions on a concurrent penalty. He asked for a penalty of 4-6 days suspension if the penalty was to be concurrent after taking into consideration Mr Innes’s 4 day suspension received for his indiscretion in race 1

Mr Innes asked that consideration be given to the onset of the jumping season which meant that flat riders would be facing less opportunities without any suspension adding to their drop in income

DECISION
The committee gave Mr Sanders submissions on the application of concurrent penalties when more than one offence was incurred during a days racing very thorough consideration. This has not, in the knowledge of the committee been the considered practice when defendants face more multiple penalties for multiple offences committed on the same race day in New Zealand .Until the Judicial Control Authority advise participants of any change this committee is not prepared to change any principals as far as sentencing is concerned. The two penalties will therefore be treated separately.

After taking into account Mr Innes’ deteriorating record, the level of interference, and the lack of mitigating circumstances we suspend Mr Innes from race riding beginning after the finish of racing on 29 April till the finish of racing on 7 May. (5 days)

D C Johnstone                B Tims
CHAIR                               Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 871.1.d

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: