Auckland TC – 12 December 2008 – Race 11

An information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N Escott against Mr G Smith, driver of CHAS LUNEY placed 4^th, alleging a breach of rule 869(3)(b), careless driving, in that he drove carelessly when he moved WOODHEBENICE, driven by Ms N Chilcott, outwards causing that horse to break with approximately 250 metres left to run.

An information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N Escott against Mr G Smith, driver of CHAS LUNEY placed 4^th, alleging a breach of rule 869(3)(b), careless driving, in that he drove carelessly when he moved WOODHEBENICE, driven by Ms N Chilcott, outwards causing that horse to break with approximately 250 metres left to run.

Mr Smith denied the breach and was present at the hearing. He agreed that the evidence adduced at the associated protest hearing could be accepted as evidence for this hearing.

Mr Escott showed the video film of the incident. CHAS LUNEY moved outwards and at this time WOODHEBENICE which was on its outside broke. The evidence of Ms Chilcott at the protest hearing was that the sulky wheel of CHAS LUNEY made contact with the back leg of her horse causing it to break. Questioned by Mr Smith , Mr Escott said Mr Smith was entitled to push out as long as he didn't cause interference. It did not matter if the movement was sudden or gradual, there must not be interference.

The thrust of Mr Smith's evidence was that he was entitled to move outwards, did so quietly and slowly, WOODHEBENICE was a huge horse with a big long cart and Ms Chilcott should have let him go. Also that WOODHEBENICE was trotting rough and unbalanced before the incident.

Mr Smith accepted Mr Coutts observation from the video film that the sulky wheel of his horse had overlapped the sulky wheel of the other horse by about 6-8 inches.

DECISION and REASONS:

The Committee accepts the uncontested evidence of Ms Chilcott that the sulky wheel of CHAS LUNEY made contact with the back leg of WOODHEBENICE and caused that horse to break. The committee is satisfied the contact occurred when the sulky wheels were overlapped. Mr Smith caused the interference to WOODHEBENICE and in doing so was careless. Having said that, the committee accepts the outward movement was gradual and that the offending is in the bottom half on the scale of seriousness.

PENALTY:

Mr Escott said Mr Smith had a clear driving record. It was a premier night. He said Mr Smith did not plead guilty. He recommended a fine of $300-$350. Mr Smith said he was aware of penalties being imposed that were well below the recommended starting point. He left penalty to the Committee. In fixing the penalty, the committee takes into account the following:

--
1. The submissions of Mr Escott, apart from there not being a guilty plea. --
2. The submissions of Mr Smith. --
3. The offending was in the bottom half on the scale of seriousness. --
4. Mr Smith's clear driving record. --
5. The recommended starting point for careless driving in a major race is a fine of $600 and/ or a three week suspension. --
6. The stake money payable for the race - $20,000 - rule 1114(2)(b) - this is a premier nights racing. --
7. The need for driving consistency; Mr L Chin pleaded guilty to careless driving in Race 1 tonight - the circumstances overall were quite similar and he was fined $450. --
8. Mr Smith prefers a fine to a suspension.

Balancing all of those matters, a fine of $450.00 is imposed.

B J Rowe

Chairman