Cambridge HRC – 12 November 2004 –

An information lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu against Mr A Pyers driver of DEBBIES DELUXE alleging a breach of the Rule 869(3)(b)  ? Careless Driving ? in that he forced a gap from three wide to two wide racing into the first bend after the start, forcing horseman R Brosnan driver of AROSE to take evasive action. The charge was originally one of reckless driving. In accordance with JCA policy Mr Pyers was given the opportunity to seek legal advice. He indicated that he would probably do so. Mr Taumanu then sought leave to amend the charge to careless driving. Mr Pyers had no objection. The charge was amended accordingly. Mr Pyers denied the charge and was present at the hearing. Mr Taumanu asked that his objection to Mr Pyers being given the opportunity to seek legal advice be noted.

Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video film, he said Mr Pyers moved his horse inwards shortly after the start and forced Mr Brosnan to check his horse and lose about 1.5 ?2 lengths. Mr Muirhead said Mr Pyers had deliberately forced himself into a position where he should not have been ? there was a safety issue ? this was not a mistake ? fortunately Mr Brosnan who is an experienced horseman took the necessary evasive action. Mr Pyers did not cross examine Mr Muirhead.

Mr Brosnan said he was heading to the one out position and Mr Pyers horse came across from the outside and he decided to give way because it was getting too tight. He said Mr Pyers should not have been heading where he was and should have given him more room. Mr Brosnan said he had another horse on the inside of him and had to check his own horse out of it. He said it could have been serious. The pace was on and he believed it was prudent to drop back. Mr Pyers did not cross examine Mr Brosnan.

Mr Pyers when asked to give his evidence said "I have got nothing to say"

The evidence of Mr Muirhead was quite clear and confirmed by the video. Clearly Mr Pyers had moved in too sharply and Mr Brosnan had no option but to check his horse. Had he not done so a serious incident would have been the probably result. Similarly Mr Brosnan was clear when giving his evidence. His evidence was confirmed by the video film and served to corroborate the evidence of Mr Muirhead. The evidence of Mr Muirhead and Mr Brosnan was not challenged and I had no hesitation in accepting their evidence. I therefore found the charge proven.

PENALTY

Mr Taumanu said that Mr Pyers had a breach for careless driving on 16/7/04 and had been suspended for about three weeks and he had also a breach for careless driving on 21/12/03 and had been suspended for about 9 calendar days. At this early stage of the submissions of Mr Taumanu, Mr Pyers said that he wanted to say something about the charge, that it wasn?t as serious as was being made out and that the gap was opening up and he was entitled to take it. I told Mr Pyers I had already found the charge proven, that he had not contested the evidence, and that his comments were more related to penalty. Mr Pyers then got up and walked out of the hearing saying "do whatever you like". In accordance with Rule 1111(9) I decided to continue the hearing in the absence of Mr Pyers. Mr Taumanu said he believed the breach was at the top end of the scale of seriousness. He said Mr Pyers drives on average once a week. He suggested a suspension of Mr Pyers horseman's licence for 8 weeks.

In imposing penalty I took into account the following matters;

--
1. The seriousness of the breach ? it was at the upper end of the scale;
--
2. The previous breaches for careless driving;
--
3. The other submissions of Mr Taumanu including the fact that Mr Pyers only drives on average once a week;

I suspended Mr Pyers horsemans licence for a period of 8 weeks commencing at the end of racing tonight and concluding at the end of racing on th 7^th January 2005.