Cambridge HRC – 6 October 2005 – Race 4

Rule 869(3)(b)

An information lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu against Mr L Hollis, driver of JAY JAY alleging a breach of the above rule ? careless driving ? in that he drove his horse carelessly causing interference to VEGE KNIGHT driven by Ms N Thorn, with approximately 350m to run. Mr Hollis denied the breach and was present at the hearing. Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video film. He said Mr Hollis had driven his horse forward and inwards from the four wide line to the three wide line resulting in his sulky wheel striking the off foreleg of VEGE KNIGHT which was racing immediately on the inside of JAY JAY, causing that horse to break and nearly fall. Ms Thorn said that her horse had broken because of pressure from the horse on the outside of her. She viewed the video film and said that Mr Hollis was to blame. She was asked by Mr Hollis if she agreed that he was only ever three wide and she disagreed with that proposition. She acknowledged that she had not called out. Mr Hollis said that he was only ever three wide and did not move inwards and cause the interference. In answer to questions by Mr Taumanu, he acknowledged his horse was hanging in and that he had continued to drive it out and hit it whilst rounding the bend. He acknowledged his driving would have compounded the hanging tendency of his horse. Despite that, Mr Hollis maintained that his horse had not moved inwards. When shown the video by the Chairman, Mr Hollis acknowledged that his horse was in fact four wide leaving the back straight. He still maintained that he had not moved inwards and caused the interference.

Decision and Reasons:

The evidence of Mr Muirhead and Ms Thorn was that Mr Hollis had driven his horse inward and caused the interference. Mr Hollis denied that his horse had moved inwards. The video film was quite clear and showed that Mr Hollis had driven his horse forward and the horse was hanging and had moved inwards and he continued to drive the horse out both before and after the foreleg of VEGE KNIGHT had been struck by his sulky wheel. The evidence of Mr Muirhead and Ms Thorn was accepted. Their evidence confirmed by the video film. The charge therefore was found proven.

Penalty:

Mr Taumanu said that Mr Hollis had no relevant previous breaches of the rules and that the offending was mid to upper range on the scale of seriousness. He said the breach almost caused VEGE KNIGHT to fall. He suggested a suspension in the order of 2-4 weeks. Mr Hollis said that he drives 2-4 times each meeting and that he had a good driving record and no breaches for dangerous or careless driving. He accepted that a suspension was appropriate. In fixing penalty the following matters were taken into account.

--
1. The submissions of Mr Taumanu
--
2. The submissions of Mr Hollis
--
3. The good driving record of Mr Hollis
--
4. The seriousness of the offence ? mid to upper range
--
5. The offending almost resulted in another horse falling

Balancing all those matters a suspension of Mr Hollis's horseman's licence was imposed until the end of racing on the 27 October 2005, effectively four days. A suspension of four weeks was considered, but that would have included another three days racing which would have been excessive in the circumstances.