Marlborough HRC – 24 April 2008 –

hearingid: d382bacf4dd117d1365278827f28a3ca

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 24/04/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Marlborough HRC - 24 April 2008 -

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following a visit to the racecourse by stipendiary steward Mr Ching earlier in the day, an amended Information was lodged against trainer, Ms R Allison. The Information alleged a breach of Rule 1002(1)(b), in that Ms Allison rode work at the Blenheim racecourse on the morning of 24 April 2008 without an approved body protector

Following a visit to the racecourse by stipendiary steward Mr Ching earlier in the day, an amended Information was lodged against trainer, Ms R Allison. The Information alleged a breach of Rule 1002(1)(b), in that Ms Allison rode work at the Blenheim racecourse on the morning of 24 April 2008 without an approved body protector as required under Board Direction 158(1)(a).

Ms Allison admitted the breach and did not wish to be present.

Explaining the charge, Mr Ching said that the emphasis was on complying with a direction of NZTR, and Board Direction 158(1)(a), as referred to in the Information, was shown to the committee.

Mr Ching said that he attended track work at the Blenheim racecourse earlier in the day and, at about 7.00am, he noticed Ms Allison leaving the track after doing trackwork. She was asked if she was wearing a protective vest and said she was not. She was open in her admission, and offered no excuse.

In respect to penalty, Mr Ching suggested some credit should be given to Ms Allison for her honesty and, with no previous breaches, for her exemplary record, but stressed this was a safety issue. He recommended a monetary penalty and, in so doing, gave examples of previous penalties that had been awarded in similar circumstances.

In this case, Ms Allison has admitted a breach of the Rules in that she rode work at the Blenheim racecourse without an approved body protector as required by Board Direction 158(1)(a).

The circumstances have been explained by Mr Ching. It is a safety issue, one which has been well-publicised, where a starting point in respect to penalty could be seen as a fine in the order of $500.00.

Mr Ching’s submissions in relation to other cases indicated similar circumstances - a first breach by the defendant and a guilty plea at the first opportunity. We are guided by that in considering penalty in this case.

Ms Allison is to be given some credit for openly admitting the breach, and it is her first such breach of the Rules. Taking that into account, and those previous cases referred to, we are satisfied a fine of $350.00 is appropriate and so order.

PH Welch JM Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 1002.1.b

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: