Franklin TC 13 April 2012 – R 1

ID: JCA14328

Applicant:
Mr J M Muirhead - Stipendiary Steward

Respondent(s):
Mr S B Phillips - Advanced Amateur Horseman

Information Number:
A2359

Hearing Type:
Hearing

Rules:
869(3)(b)

Plea:
denied

Meet Title:
Franklin TC - 13 April 2012

Meet Chair:
BScott

Meet Committee Member 1:
GJones

Race Date:
2012/04/13

Race Number:
R 1

Decision:

We accordingly find the charge proved.

Penalty:

The Committee therefore imposes a fine of $350.00 on Mr Phillips.

Charge:

Breach of 869(3)(b) – Careless Driving

Facts:

An Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr JM Muirhead against Advanced Amateur Horseman Mr SB Phillips alleging Mr Phillips drove RAIN FOREST carelessly causing interference to WITH A VENGEANCE (Driver Mr TR Vince) in the run home.

Mr Phillips was present and advised the Committee he did not admit the breach.

Mr Phillips at the outset asked for an adjournment of the Hearing because he said that a careless driving charge was a serious charge as far as Amateur Drivers were concerned. He said that it would be in the interests of fairness that it should be adjourned.

Mr Muirhead opposed any adjournment on the basis that this was a charge of Careless Driving and was not a charge of a more serious nature.

The Committee deliberated in the absence of the parties and the parties were then called back to enable the Committee to deliver its decision.

The Committee declined Mr Phillips' request on the basis that in terms of the Rules of Harness Racing this is not a serious charge and also the relevant video films and any witnesses are available tonight.

There are no compelling grounds for ordering an adjournment.

Mr Muirhead referred to Rule 869(3)(b) which states that: "a Driver shall not drive carelessly."

Mr Muirhead also referred to Rule 869(4) which provides:

“No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.”

He further referred to Rule 869(7) which places an expectation on all horseman making moves to do so with safety.

Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident with use of the video films. These were the films shown at the previous Protest Hearing into the first placing of RAIN FOREST. Mr Muirhead demonstrated where the sulky wheel of Mr Phillips’ horse had gone inside the line of the sulky wheel of WITH A VENGEANCE and there had been contact with that horse’s hind leg and it became unbalanced and had broken.

He used the head on view and the rear view to show the wheel inside the line of the wheel of Mr Vince’s horse and showed where the leg struck it.

By way of cross examination Mr Phillips demonstrated that Mr Vince’s horse had got its head around and asked if that contributed. Mr Muirhead said that it may have. He did say however that Mr Phillips’ sulky shaft had gone underneath the sulky shaft of Mr Vince’s horse.

Mr Phillips then asked if the incident would have occurred if he had run straight and Mr Muirhead thought that Mr Phillips had not run straight.

Mr Vince then gave evidence. He said that he was the Driver of WITH A VENGEANCE and he had just pulled the ear plugs and he “hadn’t gone for my horse” when there was contact from the horse on the inside which ran out, his horse galloped and lost its chance. He said that his horse wouldn’t have galloped without interference and he reported the matter to the Stewards.

Mr Phillips then questioned Mr Vince and asked him if he had pulled his horse’s head around when he was pulling the ear plugs and Mr Vince said he did not.

In answer to a further question Mr Vince said that he was trying to get away from Mr Phillips because he was coming out underneath Mr Vince’s sulky shaft. He said the interference had already taken place.

Mr Vince then said to Mr Phillips that he had made contact with Mr Vince’s horse and that he (Mr Vince) was entitled to be there.

Mr Phillips asked Mr Vince if he thought that his horse contributed to the incident and he said “no not at all.”

Mr Phillips asked Mr Vince if the movement from his horse was a normal movement from a horse and Mr Vince said he was entitled to hold his line and keep Mr Phillips in. He said “I am entitled to a fair crack and you have taken me out.”

Mr Muirhead by way of examination asked Mr Vince about the style of sulky he was driving and how Mr Phillips’ sulky shaft could move under the sulky shaft of Mr Vince’s horse.

Mr Phillips then gave evidence and said that when he was going into the gap there was room. He said that the problems caused by Mr Vince’s horse moving his head around in doing so by moving its head outwards its rear moved inwards. He said that it might not have happened if Mr Vince had not panicked.

Mr Phillips said that when he looks at the films he can see that there is contact but it is only the sulky shaft or sulky stay.

In answer to a question from Mr Muirhead Mr Phillips said that he thought there was room.

In answer to a further question he was asked if he came out with safety and he said he thought he did.

Submissions for Decision:

By way of summary Mr Muirhead said that the video and the evidence of Mr Vince were both very clear evidence. The wheel of Mr Phillips’ sulky has gone underneath the shaft of Mr Vince’s sulky and there has been contact.

By way of summary Mr Phillips said that Mr Vince’s evidence has come clearer after the earlier Hearing and that he had time to think about it. He maintained that Mr Vince’s driving contributed to the incident.

Reasons for Decision:

The Committee has viewed the films and we had the benefit of four different views of the same incident. We have listened to the evidence. It is very clear that Mr Phillips has moved out and has made contact with the offside hind leg of Mr Vince’s horse causing that horse to break.

We do not accept that Mr Vince or his horse made any contribution to the incident. We are clear in our view that Mr Phillips caused the interference.

Submissions for Penalty:

Mr Muirhead referred to the JCA Guidelines and said that the standard penalty was suspension of a license for 10 drives and/or a $500.00 fine. He said that Mr Phillips had one other similar charge in October last year.

Mr Phillips said that the penalties were for professional drivers and he of course is an Amateur Driver. He would prefer a fine because there are limited opportunities for amateur drivers.

Reasons for Penalty:

This was a clear case of interference as far as the Committee was concerned and the result was that it not only caused the relegation of Mr Phillips’ horse but the chances of Mr Vince’s horse were affected. The Committee proposes to deal with this by way of a fine and although the starting point is a $500.00 fine the Committee acknowledges that Mr Phillips is an Amateur Driver. He does however have a previous charge in October 2011.

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: 75abc4075a9399ff9e58c2fd120bf162

informantnumber: A2359

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea: denied

penaltyrequired: 1

decisiondate: 15/06/2012

hearing_title: Franklin TC 13 April 2012 - R 1

charge:

Breach of 869(3)(b) – Careless Driving

facts: