Invercargill HRC – 29 August 2004 –

Adjourned inquiry heard at Forbury Park on the 9 September 2004.

...............................................................................................

Mr M (Curly) Thomas (whom I shall refer to as Mr Thomas snr) sought leave and was permitted to speak on behalf of Mr G Thomas (Mr Thomas jnr). He indicated that Mr Thomas jnr entered a plea of guilty to four charges:

? one under rule 303(2) in that he was directed by the Chairman of Stewards (Mr Knowles) at the Invercargill HRC meeting on the 29^th August 2004 not to leave the racecourse until inquiries into race 1 had been completed, and that he left the racecourse without permission and did not return; and

? three under rule 507(2) in that he failed to complete three driving engagements at the Invercargill HRC meeting on the 29^th August 2004 by leaving the course and not returning. These were: race 6 Bard from Snipping; race 7 Stout Murphy; and race 8 Falconella.

Mr Thomas jnr was the declared driver for 4 horses at the Invercargill HRC meeting on 29 August:

Race 1 Chiola in Blackjeans

Race 6 Bard from Snipping

Race 7 Stout Murphy

Race 8 Falconella

An incident occurred in race 1 involving Mr Thomas jnr and he was asked to attend the Steward's Room for inquiries into the running of Chiola in Blackjeans. During the inquiry Mr Thomas jnr became increasingly agitated, to the point that he was asked to leave the room and return at a later time. Mr Thomas jnr was given an express instruction by Mr Knowles, stipendiary steward, that he was not to leave the course until the stewards had completed their inquiries.

Several races later the stipendiary stewards were informed by Mr Thomas snr that Mr Thomas jnr had left the course and was not returning. Mr Thomas snr initially sought to scratch his horse Bard from Snipping from race 6 but later agreed to a change of driver. Mr S Lock, trainer of Stout Murphy and Falconella, also agreed to arrange another driver. At the completion of the meeting the stipendiary stewards had not received any communication from Mr Thomas jnr as to why he had left the course when instructed not to, nor why he had not returned to fulfil his driving engagements.

An inquiry into Mr Thomas jnr's non-appearance and broken driving engagements was opened and adjourned by the stipendiary stewards.

On 30 August Mr Knowles wrote to Mr Edward Rennell, General Manager HRNZ, seeking permission to charge Mr Thomas jnr with alleged breaches of rules 303 and 507. On 31 August Mr Rennell emailed a reply giving Mr Knowles permission to charge Mr Thomas jnr.

On 31 August Mr Knowles wrote to Mr Thomas jnr informing him he was to be charged with alleged breaches of rules 302(2) and 507(2). Two informations were laid. These along with a covering letter were posted to Mr Thomas jnr by registered letter, in accordance with rule 1107(1)(c), to his address in Invercargill. Copies of the informations were also posted to the Registrar of the JCA.

The hearing of Informations Nos. 64964 & 64966 took place in the President's Room at Forbury Park on 9 September 2004.

Mr Knowles in his submissions emphasised the seriousness of the breaches. He said with respect to rule 303(2) that the request he had made of Mr Thomas jnr was not unreasonable and that he had simply wanted to make inquiries about his drive in the first race. In relation to rule 507(2) there were three breaches, inconveniencing two trainers who had expected Mr Thomas jnr to drive their horses. He sought six weeks suspension for the breach of rule 303(2) and, with rule 507(4)(a) only empowering the imposition of a fine for a breach of rule 507(2), he sought a fine of $250 on each charge.

In wide ranging submissions Mr Thomas snr stated that on the day in question Mr Thomas jnr was suffering severe stress. He explained that a close friend, who was also involved in Harness Racing, of Mr Thomas jnr had recently committed suicide and that this had affected Mr Thomas jnr deeply. He also pointed to other matters which may have led Mr Thomas jnr to act out of character.

In determining the appropriate penalty it is first pertinent to note that the four charges arise out of the one incident, the unfortunate decision of Mr Thomas jnr to leave the racecourse during the course of the meeting and while stipendiary inquiries were proceeding. For this reason, it is my intention to approach the appropriate penalty on a totality basis.

I regard the most serious breach to be the charge under rule 303(2). It must be emphasised that there was no misconduct by Mr Thomas jnr in the Stewards Room. The charge arises solely out of his failure to follow a clear direction given to him by Mr Knowles. The failure of Mr Thomas jnr to fulfil his driving engagements compounds his failure to comply with the stipendiary steward's directions. In leaving the course he failed to fulfil his engagements to drive three horses later in the programme. Fortunately these horses did not have to be late scratched, with replacement drivers being sought and found. The connections of these horses were thus inconvenienced only to the extent that their preferred driver was not present to take his place in the cart. Presumably public announcements were made as to the late driver changes and those persons who wished to invest on the horses were not significantly affected. There was thus no consequential loss to the club that would otherwise have eventuated had the horses been late scratched. These are mitigating factors but are not matters for which Mr Thomas jnr can claim any direct credit.

I find there is a need to balance the deterrent message that must be sent with respect to the breach of rule 303(2) with the personal circumstances of Mr Thomas jnr.

The requirement that licence holders obey instructions from stipendiary stewards is paramount to the integrity of Harness Racing. It is essential to the necessary regulation and proper operation of any race meeting. This is so obvious that it hardly needs stating.

But on the other hand, Mr Thomas jnr's actions were completely out of character. He was so distressed he left with the colours of a horse he was to drive later that day. I have before me an explanation for this distress proffered on behalf of Mr Thomas jnr by Mr Thomas snr. The informant does not dispute the fact that Mr Thomas jnr was stressed on the day of the meeting. I impose penalty on the basis that the actions of Mr Thomas jnr were an impulsive response to the acute pressure he was under that day.

With reference to information No. 64964, the breach of rule 303(2), I suspend Mr Thomas jnr from Tuesday 14 September 2004 up to and including Thursday 14 October. This suspension of one month is in effect 6 (Otago/Southland) driving days. With reference to information No. 64966, the 3 breaches of rule 507(2), I simply find the charges proved and impose no penalty. However, I take this opportunity to warn Mr Thomas jnr of his obligations under the Rules of Harness Racing and impress upon him the need to ensure that there is no repeat of behaviour that undermines the authority of Harness Racing officials.

Because of the unusual combination of circumstances present in this case it is suggested that this penalty not be used a precedent as to the appropriate penalty for a breach of the rules in question. This is an unusual case which requires that the penalty be moulded to Mr Thomas jnr's particular circumstances.