Banks Peninsula TC 26 January 2020 – R 9 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA17593
Meet Title:
Banks Peninsula TC - 26 January 2020
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
DAnderson
Race Date:
2020/01/26
Race Number:
R9
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Orange’s Open Driver’s licence is suspended for a period commencing from the close of racing on 26 January 2020 up to and including 30 January 2020, after which date he may drive. This is a 1-day suspension involving the meeting of Wyndham HRC on 30 January 2020. In addition, Mr Orange is fined the sum of $250.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 9, Walker Davey Searells Accountants Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Ms C M Tibbs, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr B N Orange, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Orange, as the driver of CHLOE ROSE in the race, “drove carelessly near the 300 metres when shifting outwards checking MIDNIGHT ASSASSIN (C J DeFilippi) which broke”.
Mr Orange was present at the hearing of the information. He had declined to sign the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating his plea to the charge. A discussion ensued during which Mr Orange expressed his concern as to the likely period of suspension that would follow if he admitted the breach. The Committee explained to him that the matter of penalty only became relevant following the charge being proved or admitted.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
Submissions for Decision:
Ms Tibbs had Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, show video replays of the incident with approximately 200 metres to run. He pointed out CHLOE ROSE, driven by Mr Orange, racing 3-wide behind SOME TIME (J Smith) with MIDNIGHT ASSASSIN (C J DeFilippi) racing to his outside.
Mr Orange was held up for room at that stage and attempted to come wider to improve his position. However, Mr DeFilippi had MONRIKA (T S Chmiel) to his outside and had no room to move out and relieve the pressure, as he had no advantage over Mr Chmiel. Mr Orange’s sulky had got close to the legs of Mr DeFilippi’s horse and made contact. Mr DeFilippi’s horse broke shortly after. When he came out, Mr Orange was not entitled to do so and placed Mr DeFilippi in restricted room and was tightened, Mr Renault submitted.
Mr Orange said that he had come out gradually and Mr DeFilippi’s horse’s back leg did strike his wheel but “trotted through it”, and it was not until a few strides later that it broke. It was questionable whether the “slight contact” contributed to its galloping, he submitted. Mr Orange was asked by the Committee to confirm that he admitted the charge to which he replied that he denied that he had driven carelessly.
At this point, the hearing was adjourned as Race 10 was being run. When the hearing resumed, the Committee told the hearing that it was formally recording that Mr Orange had changed his plea to the charge, which was now denied.
Mr DeFilippi was shown the video replays. He said that he had received “a wee bit” of pressure from both sides. He was not able to relieve the pressure from the inside because of Mr Chmiel’s horse to his outside. His horse had been travelling “okay” prior to the incident. Mr Chmiel’s runner had run in at about the same time as Mr Orange had been “looking to go forward”. It may have been the wheel of Mr Chmiel’s sulky that his horse had struck, Mr DeFilippi said.
When Mr Orange moved outwards, Mr DeFilippi said, he was unable to move wider as Mr Chmiel was ahead of him. He had to take a hold of his horse, which galloped several strides after the contact. His horse got off balance but should have kept trotting. It was free of interference when it galloped. Mr Orange’s movement was gradual, Mr DeFilippi said, and he would probably have done the same thing in that situation.
Mr DeFilippi agreed with Mr Orange that his horse had galloped several strides after being contacted. He suggested that Mr DeFilippi had also been angling out for a run and his horse’s head was turned out. Mr Orange submitted that his horse had “not come out full, only half”. He could not be responsible when Mr DeFilippi’s horse had galloped some time after the initial movement and not as a result of the horse’s hind leg striking the cart. Mr Orange then questioned whether it was the wheel of his sulky that had been struck after all.
Mr Renault made a final submission that Stewards were alleging that Mr Orange was not entitled to move out when he did and had been careless in shifting outwards when not entitled to. Mr DeFilippi had another runner outside and ahead of him. Mr Orange should have been aware of that. Stewards believed that there had been contact from the wheel of Mr Orange’s sulky to the leg of Mr DeFilippi’s horse. That contact had only happened because of Mr Orange’s movement.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr Orange initially admitted the charge that he drove carelessly in shifting outwards near the 350 metres checking MIDNIGHT ASSASSIN, driven by Mr DeFilippi. However, nearing the end of the informant’s evidence, Mr Orange said that he did not admit the charge and the Committee granted him leave to change his plea.
At that point, Ms Tibbs called Mr DeFilippi to give evidence and we feel bound to say that we found his evidence to be given in a hesitant manner and unconvincing. Likewise, Mr Orange’s own evidence was unconvincing and inconsistent.
Mr Orange, having earlier in the hearing clearly stated that the leg of Mr DeFilippi’s horse had struck his sulky wheel but tried to convince us that that had not been the cause of Mr DeFilippi’s horse breaking, later said that there had been no contact.
The Committee preferred the evidence of the Stewards.
We are clearly satisfied that Mr Orange has shifted his horse outwards as alleged. Mr DeFilippi had nowhere to go to relieve the pressure exerted by that outwards movement and, as a result, his horse was checked, became unbalanced and broke, losing its chance. We attach no significance to the fact that it was several strides after the contact that the horse broke, being satisfied that it did break as a result of the interference. The Committee believes that the video evidence clearly supports that finding.
Submissions for Penalty:
Ms Tibbs told the hearing that Mr Orange is a very busy driver having had 602 drives this season and 1,074 in the 2018/2019 season. He has a clear record under the careless driving rule.
Ms Tibbs referred to the Penalty Guide starting point of a 10-drives suspension. She said that the breach was low-range and therefore not warranting any uplift to the starting point. Stewards were seeking a 2-days suspension.
Mr Orange referred to his good record. A 1-day suspension for him involves 10 drives and he submitted that should be the penalty and that would be the meeting of Wyndham HRC on 30 January. He has a full book of drives at Wyndham which he will forego, he said.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Penalty Guide starting point for this breach is a 10-drives suspension or a $500 fine. Mr Orange, it would be fair to say, is probably the only driver in New Zealand, who drives when he can at most meetings and, at those meetings, would normally have up to 10 drives. We accept that he drives at Southland meetings and we have to accept that he would have been driving at the Wyndham meeting on 30 January, as he asserted. We note that Mr Orange has not driven at any of the last three Thursday meetings in Southland, but we can only take him at his word that he had a “full book” at that meeting.
We do not accept that the breach was low-range as submitted by Ms Tibbs. Mr Orange has deliberately angled his runner out looking for racing room, and we found that he had contacted the leg of Mr DeFilippi’s runner causing it to break at a vital stage and lose all chance. This is a clear aggravating factor.
We believe, however, that a 2-days suspension would be unduly harsh, but a 1-day suspension does not take account of the aggravating factor referred to. We therefore propose to deal with that situation by imposing a fine in addition to a 1-day suspension.
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: f69f03c6edd326c1a69117a454d451f4
informantnumber: A11243
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Driving
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 31/01/2020
hearing_title: Banks Peninsula TC 26 January 2020 - R 9 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 9, Walker Davey Searells Accountants Trot, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Ms C M Tibbs, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr B N Orange, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Orange, as the driver of CHLOE ROSE in the race, “drove carelessly near the 300 metres when shifting outwards checking MIDNIGHT ASSASSIN (C J DeFilippi) which broke”.
Mr Orange was present at the hearing of the information. He had declined to sign the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating his plea to the charge. A discussion ensued during which Mr Orange expressed his concern as to the likely period of suspension that would follow if he admitted the breach. The Committee explained to him that the matter of penalty only became relevant following the charge being proved or admitted.
Rule 869 provides as follows:
(3) No horseman in any race shall drive:-
(b) carelessly.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Ms Tibbs had Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault, show video replays of the incident with approximately 200 metres to run. He pointed out CHLOE ROSE, driven by Mr Orange, racing 3-wide behind SOME TIME (J Smith) with MIDNIGHT ASSASSIN (C J DeFilippi) racing to his outside.
Mr Orange was held up for room at that stage and attempted to come wider to improve his position. However, Mr DeFilippi had MONRIKA (T S Chmiel) to his outside and had no room to move out and relieve the pressure, as he had no advantage over Mr Chmiel. Mr Orange’s sulky had got close to the legs of Mr DeFilippi’s horse and made contact. Mr DeFilippi’s horse broke shortly after. When he came out, Mr Orange was not entitled to do so and placed Mr DeFilippi in restricted room and was tightened, Mr Renault submitted.
Mr Orange said that he had come out gradually and Mr DeFilippi’s horse’s back leg did strike his wheel but “trotted through it”, and it was not until a few strides later that it broke. It was questionable whether the “slight contact” contributed to its galloping, he submitted. Mr Orange was asked by the Committee to confirm that he admitted the charge to which he replied that he denied that he had driven carelessly.
At this point, the hearing was adjourned as Race 10 was being run. When the hearing resumed, the Committee told the hearing that it was formally recording that Mr Orange had changed his plea to the charge, which was now denied.
Mr DeFilippi was shown the video replays. He said that he had received “a wee bit” of pressure from both sides. He was not able to relieve the pressure from the inside because of Mr Chmiel’s horse to his outside. His horse had been travelling “okay” prior to the incident. Mr Chmiel’s runner had run in at about the same time as Mr Orange had been “looking to go forward”. It may have been the wheel of Mr Chmiel’s sulky that his horse had struck, Mr DeFilippi said.
When Mr Orange moved outwards, Mr DeFilippi said, he was unable to move wider as Mr Chmiel was ahead of him. He had to take a hold of his horse, which galloped several strides after the contact. His horse got off balance but should have kept trotting. It was free of interference when it galloped. Mr Orange’s movement was gradual, Mr DeFilippi said, and he would probably have done the same thing in that situation.
Mr DeFilippi agreed with Mr Orange that his horse had galloped several strides after being contacted. He suggested that Mr DeFilippi had also been angling out for a run and his horse’s head was turned out. Mr Orange submitted that his horse had “not come out full, only half”. He could not be responsible when Mr DeFilippi’s horse had galloped some time after the initial movement and not as a result of the horse’s hind leg striking the cart. Mr Orange then questioned whether it was the wheel of his sulky that had been struck after all.
Mr Renault made a final submission that Stewards were alleging that Mr Orange was not entitled to move out when he did and had been careless in shifting outwards when not entitled to. Mr DeFilippi had another runner outside and ahead of him. Mr Orange should have been aware of that. Stewards believed that there had been contact from the wheel of Mr Orange’s sulky to the leg of Mr DeFilippi’s horse. That contact had only happened because of Mr Orange’s movement.
reasonsfordecision:
Mr Orange initially admitted the charge that he drove carelessly in shifting outwards near the 350 metres checking MIDNIGHT ASSASSIN, driven by Mr DeFilippi. However, nearing the end of the informant’s evidence, Mr Orange said that he did not admit the charge and the Committee granted him leave to change his plea.
At that point, Ms Tibbs called Mr DeFilippi to give evidence and we feel bound to say that we found his evidence to be given in a hesitant manner and unconvincing. Likewise, Mr Orange’s own evidence was unconvincing and inconsistent.
Mr Orange, having earlier in the hearing clearly stated that the leg of Mr DeFilippi’s horse had struck his sulky wheel but tried to convince us that that had not been the cause of Mr DeFilippi’s horse breaking, later said that there had been no contact.
The Committee preferred the evidence of the Stewards.
We are clearly satisfied that Mr Orange has shifted his horse outwards as alleged. Mr DeFilippi had nowhere to go to relieve the pressure exerted by that outwards movement and, as a result, his horse was checked, became unbalanced and broke, losing its chance. We attach no significance to the fact that it was several strides after the contact that the horse broke, being satisfied that it did break as a result of the interference. The Committee believes that the video evidence clearly supports that finding.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Ms Tibbs told the hearing that Mr Orange is a very busy driver having had 602 drives this season and 1,074 in the 2018/2019 season. He has a clear record under the careless driving rule.
Ms Tibbs referred to the Penalty Guide starting point of a 10-drives suspension. She said that the breach was low-range and therefore not warranting any uplift to the starting point. Stewards were seeking a 2-days suspension.
Mr Orange referred to his good record. A 1-day suspension for him involves 10 drives and he submitted that should be the penalty and that would be the meeting of Wyndham HRC on 30 January. He has a full book of drives at Wyndham which he will forego, he said.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Penalty Guide starting point for this breach is a 10-drives suspension or a $500 fine. Mr Orange, it would be fair to say, is probably the only driver in New Zealand, who drives when he can at most meetings and, at those meetings, would normally have up to 10 drives. We accept that he drives at Southland meetings and we have to accept that he would have been driving at the Wyndham meeting on 30 January, as he asserted. We note that Mr Orange has not driven at any of the last three Thursday meetings in Southland, but we can only take him at his word that he had a “full book” at that meeting.
We do not accept that the breach was low-range as submitted by Ms Tibbs. Mr Orange has deliberately angled his runner out looking for racing room, and we found that he had contacted the leg of Mr DeFilippi’s runner causing it to break at a vital stage and lose all chance. This is a clear aggravating factor.
We believe, however, that a 2-days suspension would be unduly harsh, but a 1-day suspension does not take account of the aggravating factor referred to. We therefore propose to deal with that situation by imposing a fine in addition to a 1-day suspension.
penalty:
Mr Orange’s Open Driver’s licence is suspended for a period commencing from the close of racing on 26 January 2020 up to and including 30 January 2020, after which date he may drive. This is a 1-day suspension involving the meeting of Wyndham HRC on 30 January 2020. In addition, Mr Orange is fined the sum of $250.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(3)(b)
Informant: C M Tibbs, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: B N Orange, Licensed Open Driver
Otherperson: C J DeFilippi, Licensed Open Driver, Mr S P Renault - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: bb94f32abb14ba9c1b6268e3fe48a95f
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R9
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: c70c3e51f616fc9ab71ba659f34e193c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 26/01/2020
meet_title: Banks Peninsula TC - 26 January 2020
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: banks-peninsula-tc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: DAnderson
meet_pm2: none
name: Banks Peninsula TC