Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C Lunn – 21 February 2012 – Decision dated 14 March 2012
ID: JCA14091
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
BETWEEN ANDREW RAY, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND CASEY LUNN, Licensed Apprentice Jockey, (Class B)
Respondent
Date of Hearing: Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Venue: Judicial Room, Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - J M Phelan. Committee Member
Present: Mr A L Ray (the Informant), Mr C J George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, Miss C M Lunn (the Respondent),Mr P D J Harris (Licensed Public Trainer), Mr J M McLaughlin (Registrar)
Date of Decision: 14 March 2012
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Miss Lunn was charged with a breach of Rule 636 (1) (b) of the Rules of Racing in that, as the rider of CHILLYDIP in Race 6, Park Lane Painters and Decorators Rating 75, at the meeting of Greymouth Jockey Club at Omoto on 14 January 2012, she “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the middle stages of the race so as to give CHILLYDIP full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible placing in the field”.
[2] More specifically, it was alleged that:
“After riding hard in the early stages to obtain the lead near the 700 metres [she] continued to ride [her] mount with excessive pressure (vigour) until the 400 metres where CHILLYDIP commenced to give ground. The Stipendiary Stewards believe that in the circumstances [her] actions were unreasonable. [Her] failure to give CHILLYDIP any respite in the said part of the race resulted in [her] mount significantly tiring over the final 400 metres and not finishing in the best possible position”.
[3] Mr Ray produced a letter from Mr M R Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 903 (2) (d), giving permission to the filing of the information.
The Plea
[4] Miss Lunn indicated that she denied the breach.
The Rule
[5] Rule 636 of the Rules of Racing provides as follows:
(1) A person:
(b) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Evidence and Submissions of the Informant
[6] On Saturday 14th January 2012 the Respondent, Miss Lunn, rode CHILLYDIP, trained by her employer Mr Harris, in Race 6 at the Greymouth Jockey Club’s meeting at Omoto Racecourse, Greymouth.
[7] Following the race, the Stewards commenced an investigation into the running and handling of CHILLYDIP – in particular, into the way the horse was ridden over the early and middle stages. Of concern to the Stewards was the fact that CHILLYDIP, after being ridden hard in the early stages to obtain the lead near the 700 metres, was continued to be placed under pressure by Miss Lunn. This pressure included the use of the whip. CHILLYDIP commenced to give ground noticeably inside the final 400 metres.
[8] As part of their investigations, the Stewards interviewed Miss Lunn and Mr Harris on raceday and their evidence was recorded. This will be referred to later in this decision.
[9] CHILLYDIP underwent a post-race veterinary inspection which revealed no abnormalities.
[10] Mr Ray alleged that Miss Lunn had demonstrated a “serious lack of judgement” during the middle stages of the race in which, not only did she permit CHILLYDIP to run at high speed but also she applied the whip to encourage the horse to sustain “an excessively fast gallop”.
[11] Mr Ray contended that, as a result of Miss Lunn’s riding in the middle stages, CHILLYDIP’s reserves were “severely dissipated” resulting in the horse finishing last, beaten by 17.7 lengths.
[12] Mr Ray then had Mr Cameron George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, show video replays of the race.
[13] Mr George said the race was a Rating 75 event over a distance of 1100 metres on a Heavy 11 track. CHILLY DIP drew the outside gate in a field of 8. The horse began only fairly, Mr George submitted, and was thereafter ridden forward, with pressure, to race handy. This part of the race was of no concern to the Stewards – Miss Lunn was entitled to press forward to race outside the leader, STRAVINSKAYA (L J Callaway).
[14] The Stewards were concerned over Miss Lunn’s ride from the 700 metres, Mr George said. He pointed out Mr Callaway begin to restrain his mount in anticipation of CHILLYDIP progressing to the lead.
[15] After taking the lead, Miss Lunn continued to ride CHILLYDIP “with pressure”, which was excessive in the particular circumstances of this race on this day.
[16] Mr George submitted that it would have been more reasonable and it would have shown better judgement for Miss Lunn to have given her mount some respite after having been used up so much to reach the lead. Instead, she gathered her reins up and continued to urge the horse along and then drew the whip to maintain an unacceptable speed, he said.
[17] Mr George referred to the video and demonstrated that, approaching the 400 metres, despite the continued efforts of Miss Lunn, CHILLYDIP had come back to the field and was being overtaken by other runners. The horse stopped quickly and finished last.
Submissions of Respondent
[18] Mr Harris said that the replays of the race did show Miss Lunn’s inexperience for a portion of the race, namely, from the 700 to the 600 metres, when she rode her mount with the whip. He said that this did not fully explain the horse’s stopping. Miss Lunn did “sit up” at the 200 metres and let the horse “coast to the line” which gave the impression that the horse stopped quite quickly.
[19] Mr Harris submitted that the ride could be put down to inexperience. Miss Lunn was instructed to ride the horse handy, which she had done. He submitted that the horse was still in front at the 400 metres. The only aspect of the ride which was of concern was the hitting of the horse with the whip at about the 600 metres, at which point she was not clear of STRAVINSKAYA, Mr Harris said.
[20] Miss Lunn said that she was concerned to maintain the pace so as to clear STRAVINSKAYA. She feared that her horse, which was wearing blinkers, would ease up once she could no longer see the other horse. It was for this reason that she used the whip on the horse, she said.
[21] Mr Harris showed a video of a race at Hokitika two days earlier in which Miss Lunn rode THE HARRIER to win the race with similar tactics.
[22] Miss Lunn said that she had ridden CHILLYDIP in a similar fashion in a previous race at Invercargill in December 2010. On that occasion, on a good track, the horse had led and been beaten by a nose. Miss Lunn showed a video replay of that race.
[23] Miss Lunn said that the way that she had ridden the horse was the best way to ride it. She had ridden it in several races and in a lot of its work. The track conditions did not suit the mare, she said
Transcript of Raceday Interview
[24] Lengthy interviews were conducted by the Stewards on the raceday with both Miss Lunn and Mr Harris. The transcript of that interview comprised some 35 pages. The only parts of the interview that were of assistance to the Committee in determining the charge were those where Miss Lunn and Mr Harris had commented on the ride.
[25] At one point, Miss Lunn stated – “I don’t ride like this, it has just been instructions from my employer”.
[26] At various times, Mr Harris made the following comments:
• “I can’t believe she’s got the stick out down the back straight”
• “Oh, that’s the last thing you want to be doing. Like I mean now she could have actually just given it a bit of a rest”
• “There is nothing wrong with the horse being launched the way it was. It was stupidity her, her hitting the horse when it got to the front. When I say launch a horse and get it going, that is over vigorous riding.
• “And if I was one of you guys [the Stipendiary Stewards] I would be putting her on the mat and I would absolutely be saying if you do that again you’ll get six months for incompetent riding”.
• “I believe the ride was one out of ten and I have spoken to her about it”.
• “That’s ridiculous, absolute stupidity. Going to the front, when you’re on, you’re actually going forward and then putting in a couple around her arse”.
• “Now personally I will be talking to her about flogging the horse like that when you’re in front and you’ve gone clear by two lengths”
• “But I mean you can’t sustain, in this track which really is getting a little bit sticky, you can’t sustain that run, you just can’t”.
[27] Mr Harris confirmed that he had made those statements and that, on the day, he was not pleased with Miss Lunn’s ride on the mare. He referred again to Miss Lunn’s inexperience and, also, to the inadequate tutoring given to apprentice jockeys.
Decision Reasons
[28] The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of both parties and carefully viewed the video replays shown at the hearing.
[29] The Stipendiary Stewards alleged that, between the 700 metres and the 300 metres, Miss Lunn failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that CHILLYDIP secured the best possible placing in the field.
[30] We saw that CHILLYDIP had drawn the outside barrier of 8 at the 1100 metres start on a Heavy 11 track. After being slightly slow away, Miss Lunn rode the horse with some vigour to get up outside the leader, which was STRAVINSKAYA, ridden by L J Callaway. She briefly engaged in a “speed duel” with that horse until taking a clear lead inside the 800 metres.
[31] At that point in the race, it would have been reasonable for Miss Lunn to have eased up on the horse and to have given it some respite until the point in the race at which the race became truly competitive. The obligation to take reasonable and permissible measures applies to all stages of the race. The underlying purpose of the Rule is to ensure that every horse in a race will be given full opportunity to win or to gain the best possible placing in the race.
[32] The Committee found that the way in which Miss Lunn rode CHILLYDIP, particularly between the 700 and the 300 metres, when she continued to urge the horse, and use her whip after it had worked so hard to get to the lead meant that the horse was not given adequate opportunity to run a better placing in the field. Had more appropriate riding tactics been adopted, the horse would likely have performed better and its placing in the race may well have been enhanced.
[33] Such was the error of judgement on Miss Lunn’s part that it was outside the normal limits of riding competence. Her riding can properly be described, on this occasion, as culpable or blameworthy.
[34] A rider carries with him or her the weight of public money and also the reputation of the racing industry. Judicial Committees must be zealous to see that both of these are safeguarded.
[35] The Committee is satisfied that, viewed objectively, Miss Lunn exercised poor judgement on this occasion to the extent that it prevented CHILLYDIP from, effectively, taking any part in the finish. Any inexperience on Miss Lunn’s part does not account for the absence of any effort on her part to allow her horse to participate or compete to any real effect in the finish of the race.
[36] The Committee was satisfied that Miss Lunn failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures as alleged.
Decision
[37] The Committee found the charge proved.
Penalty Submissions by the Informant
[38] Mr Ray submitted that Miss Lunn carried with her the weight of public money and the integrity of the racing industry.
[39] He submitted that the breach should be dealt with by way of a suspension. Breaches of the particular Rule are serious and require serious penalties. He did not seek any fine in addition to a suspension.
[40] He submitted that Miss Lunn’s licence to ride should be suspended for a period of 6 weeks.
[41] Mr Ray stated that the Penalty Guide suggested a starting point of 6 calendar weeks’ suspension for a breach of the Rule.
Penalty Submissions by the Respondent
[42] Mr Harris referred to the schedule of previous penalties presented by Mr Ray and submitted that in only one of the eight was a term of suspension as long as 6 weeks imposed. A suspension of 6 weeks he described as “very harsh, extremely harsh” in the light of those previous penalties. He submitted that a lesser term of suspension was appropriate.
[43] Miss Lunn was an apprentice who, from the very beginning, had shown ability. She is in racing “for the long haul”, Mr Harris said
[44] The matter of a 7-days’ deferment was discussed and upcoming South Island race dates were looked at. Mr Harris confirmed on behalf of Miss Lunn that she would not have any riding engagements in the North Island during the next 6 weeks.
Reasons for Penalty
[45] In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to Miss Lunn’s previous good record, she not having breached the Rule previously. It also took into account Miss Lunn’s relative inexperience. These were clearly mitigating factors.
[46] Nevertheless, any breach of the Rule is serious. As always, the Committee was mindful of the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing.
[47] Miss Lunn’s ride on this occasion fell well short of the required standard. However, the Committee accepts that it was a case of genuine bad judgement on her part which can be put down, at least in part, to her inexperience.
[48] The period of 6 weeks submitted by Mr Ray and suggested in the Penalty Guide is a severe penalty for a rider at the stage Miss Lunn is at in her career.
[49] The Committee is of the view that a suspension for a period of 4 weeks will at the same time serve to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing, adequately punish the breach and provide a sufficient deterrent to Miss Lunn from re-offending.
Penalty:
[50] The Committee announced that Miss Lunn’s Apprentice Jockey’s licence was to be suspended for a period of 4 weeks.
[51] Miss Lunn indicated that she did not wish to apply for a deferment.
[52] Accordingly, Miss Lunn was suspended for a period of 4 weeks commencing on 21 February 2012 up to and including 20 March 2012. This period encompassed 7 riding days.
Costs
[53] Mr George sought an award of costs in favour of the Racing Integrity Unit.
[54] Costs were reserved. The Racing Integrity is to file submissions relating to costs by 28 February 2012. Miss Lunn is to file submissions in reply within 7 days of the service on her of the Racing Integrity Unit’s submissions.
Decision on Costs
[55] In written submissions filed, the Racing Integrity Unit has submitted that it is “entitled to recover actual cost that has been incurred for the purpose of conducting this successful charge”. The “actual cost” claimed comprised the cost of transcribing the raceday interview ($210) and one-half of Mr George’s airfare ($373).
[56] No submissions in relation to costs were received from Miss Lunn.
[57] The charge in this case arose from a raceday riding breach by Miss Lunn of the Rules of Racing. Of course, she had the right to defend the charge and put the Informant to the task of proving his allegation to the Committee’s satisfaction and to present her defence to the charge before a Judicial Committee. Miss Lunn elected to defend the charge, albeit unsuccessfully.
[58] It is a well-accepted principle that an Informant is entitled to recover costs, at the discretion of the Judicial Committee, against a Respondent who unsuccessfully defends a charge in the nature of disciplinary proceedings such as drug-related charges, misconduct or the like. However, in the view of the Committee it is not the practice of Judicial Committees to award costs to a successful Informant in a case arising out of a riding charge. This is the case whether the charge is defended or not and whether it is heard on a raceday or not. The Committee is not aware of a single case where costs have been so awarded.
[59] A jockey must be given the right to defend a raceday riding-related charge, whether heard on the raceday or not, without fear that an award of costs will follow an unsuccessful defence.
[60] In this case, the Racing Integrity Unit elected not to charge Miss Lunn on raceday but rather to continue to investigate the matter and subsequently file an information to be heard as a non-raceday hearing. The charge could have been brought on the day and Miss Lunn may have elected to have it heard on that day. In that case, quite clearly, the issue of costs would not have arisen. Miss Lunn should not be required to pay costs in these circumstances
[61] There will be no order for costs.
R G McKENZIE J M PHELAN
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 12/03/2012
Publish Date: 12/03/2012
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: 973f9ce4590fd1781d038de32faf8597
informantnumber: 5220
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 12/03/2012
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v C Lunn - 21 February 2012 - Decision dated 14 March 2012
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
BETWEEN ANDREW RAY, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND CASEY LUNN, Licensed Apprentice Jockey, (Class B)
Respondent
Date of Hearing: Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Venue: Judicial Room, Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - J M Phelan. Committee Member
Present: Mr A L Ray (the Informant), Mr C J George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, Miss C M Lunn (the Respondent),Mr P D J Harris (Licensed Public Trainer), Mr J M McLaughlin (Registrar)
Date of Decision: 14 March 2012
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Miss Lunn was charged with a breach of Rule 636 (1) (b) of the Rules of Racing in that, as the rider of CHILLYDIP in Race 6, Park Lane Painters and Decorators Rating 75, at the meeting of Greymouth Jockey Club at Omoto on 14 January 2012, she “failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the middle stages of the race so as to give CHILLYDIP full opportunity to win the race or obtain the best possible placing in the field”.
[2] More specifically, it was alleged that:
“After riding hard in the early stages to obtain the lead near the 700 metres [she] continued to ride [her] mount with excessive pressure (vigour) until the 400 metres where CHILLYDIP commenced to give ground. The Stipendiary Stewards believe that in the circumstances [her] actions were unreasonable. [Her] failure to give CHILLYDIP any respite in the said part of the race resulted in [her] mount significantly tiring over the final 400 metres and not finishing in the best possible position”.
[3] Mr Ray produced a letter from Mr M R Godber, Operations Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 903 (2) (d), giving permission to the filing of the information.
The Plea
[4] Miss Lunn indicated that she denied the breach.
The Rule
[5] Rule 636 of the Rules of Racing provides as follows:
(1) A person:
(b) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place.
Evidence and Submissions of the Informant
[6] On Saturday 14th January 2012 the Respondent, Miss Lunn, rode CHILLYDIP, trained by her employer Mr Harris, in Race 6 at the Greymouth Jockey Club’s meeting at Omoto Racecourse, Greymouth.
[7] Following the race, the Stewards commenced an investigation into the running and handling of CHILLYDIP – in particular, into the way the horse was ridden over the early and middle stages. Of concern to the Stewards was the fact that CHILLYDIP, after being ridden hard in the early stages to obtain the lead near the 700 metres, was continued to be placed under pressure by Miss Lunn. This pressure included the use of the whip. CHILLYDIP commenced to give ground noticeably inside the final 400 metres.
[8] As part of their investigations, the Stewards interviewed Miss Lunn and Mr Harris on raceday and their evidence was recorded. This will be referred to later in this decision.
[9] CHILLYDIP underwent a post-race veterinary inspection which revealed no abnormalities.
[10] Mr Ray alleged that Miss Lunn had demonstrated a “serious lack of judgement” during the middle stages of the race in which, not only did she permit CHILLYDIP to run at high speed but also she applied the whip to encourage the horse to sustain “an excessively fast gallop”.
[11] Mr Ray contended that, as a result of Miss Lunn’s riding in the middle stages, CHILLYDIP’s reserves were “severely dissipated” resulting in the horse finishing last, beaten by 17.7 lengths.
[12] Mr Ray then had Mr Cameron George, Chief Stipendiary Steward, show video replays of the race.
[13] Mr George said the race was a Rating 75 event over a distance of 1100 metres on a Heavy 11 track. CHILLY DIP drew the outside gate in a field of 8. The horse began only fairly, Mr George submitted, and was thereafter ridden forward, with pressure, to race handy. This part of the race was of no concern to the Stewards – Miss Lunn was entitled to press forward to race outside the leader, STRAVINSKAYA (L J Callaway).
[14] The Stewards were concerned over Miss Lunn’s ride from the 700 metres, Mr George said. He pointed out Mr Callaway begin to restrain his mount in anticipation of CHILLYDIP progressing to the lead.
[15] After taking the lead, Miss Lunn continued to ride CHILLYDIP “with pressure”, which was excessive in the particular circumstances of this race on this day.
[16] Mr George submitted that it would have been more reasonable and it would have shown better judgement for Miss Lunn to have given her mount some respite after having been used up so much to reach the lead. Instead, she gathered her reins up and continued to urge the horse along and then drew the whip to maintain an unacceptable speed, he said.
[17] Mr George referred to the video and demonstrated that, approaching the 400 metres, despite the continued efforts of Miss Lunn, CHILLYDIP had come back to the field and was being overtaken by other runners. The horse stopped quickly and finished last.
Submissions of Respondent
[18] Mr Harris said that the replays of the race did show Miss Lunn’s inexperience for a portion of the race, namely, from the 700 to the 600 metres, when she rode her mount with the whip. He said that this did not fully explain the horse’s stopping. Miss Lunn did “sit up” at the 200 metres and let the horse “coast to the line” which gave the impression that the horse stopped quite quickly.
[19] Mr Harris submitted that the ride could be put down to inexperience. Miss Lunn was instructed to ride the horse handy, which she had done. He submitted that the horse was still in front at the 400 metres. The only aspect of the ride which was of concern was the hitting of the horse with the whip at about the 600 metres, at which point she was not clear of STRAVINSKAYA, Mr Harris said.
[20] Miss Lunn said that she was concerned to maintain the pace so as to clear STRAVINSKAYA. She feared that her horse, which was wearing blinkers, would ease up once she could no longer see the other horse. It was for this reason that she used the whip on the horse, she said.
[21] Mr Harris showed a video of a race at Hokitika two days earlier in which Miss Lunn rode THE HARRIER to win the race with similar tactics.
[22] Miss Lunn said that she had ridden CHILLYDIP in a similar fashion in a previous race at Invercargill in December 2010. On that occasion, on a good track, the horse had led and been beaten by a nose. Miss Lunn showed a video replay of that race.
[23] Miss Lunn said that the way that she had ridden the horse was the best way to ride it. She had ridden it in several races and in a lot of its work. The track conditions did not suit the mare, she said
Transcript of Raceday Interview
[24] Lengthy interviews were conducted by the Stewards on the raceday with both Miss Lunn and Mr Harris. The transcript of that interview comprised some 35 pages. The only parts of the interview that were of assistance to the Committee in determining the charge were those where Miss Lunn and Mr Harris had commented on the ride.
[25] At one point, Miss Lunn stated – “I don’t ride like this, it has just been instructions from my employer”.
[26] At various times, Mr Harris made the following comments:
• “I can’t believe she’s got the stick out down the back straight”
• “Oh, that’s the last thing you want to be doing. Like I mean now she could have actually just given it a bit of a rest”
• “There is nothing wrong with the horse being launched the way it was. It was stupidity her, her hitting the horse when it got to the front. When I say launch a horse and get it going, that is over vigorous riding.
• “And if I was one of you guys [the Stipendiary Stewards] I would be putting her on the mat and I would absolutely be saying if you do that again you’ll get six months for incompetent riding”.
• “I believe the ride was one out of ten and I have spoken to her about it”.
• “That’s ridiculous, absolute stupidity. Going to the front, when you’re on, you’re actually going forward and then putting in a couple around her arse”.
• “Now personally I will be talking to her about flogging the horse like that when you’re in front and you’ve gone clear by two lengths”
• “But I mean you can’t sustain, in this track which really is getting a little bit sticky, you can’t sustain that run, you just can’t”.
[27] Mr Harris confirmed that he had made those statements and that, on the day, he was not pleased with Miss Lunn’s ride on the mare. He referred again to Miss Lunn’s inexperience and, also, to the inadequate tutoring given to apprentice jockeys.
Decision Reasons
[28] The Committee listened to the evidence and submissions of both parties and carefully viewed the video replays shown at the hearing.
[29] The Stipendiary Stewards alleged that, between the 700 metres and the 300 metres, Miss Lunn failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that CHILLYDIP secured the best possible placing in the field.
[30] We saw that CHILLYDIP had drawn the outside barrier of 8 at the 1100 metres start on a Heavy 11 track. After being slightly slow away, Miss Lunn rode the horse with some vigour to get up outside the leader, which was STRAVINSKAYA, ridden by L J Callaway. She briefly engaged in a “speed duel” with that horse until taking a clear lead inside the 800 metres.
[31] At that point in the race, it would have been reasonable for Miss Lunn to have eased up on the horse and to have given it some respite until the point in the race at which the race became truly competitive. The obligation to take reasonable and permissible measures applies to all stages of the race. The underlying purpose of the Rule is to ensure that every horse in a race will be given full opportunity to win or to gain the best possible placing in the race.
[32] The Committee found that the way in which Miss Lunn rode CHILLYDIP, particularly between the 700 and the 300 metres, when she continued to urge the horse, and use her whip after it had worked so hard to get to the lead meant that the horse was not given adequate opportunity to run a better placing in the field. Had more appropriate riding tactics been adopted, the horse would likely have performed better and its placing in the race may well have been enhanced.
[33] Such was the error of judgement on Miss Lunn’s part that it was outside the normal limits of riding competence. Her riding can properly be described, on this occasion, as culpable or blameworthy.
[34] A rider carries with him or her the weight of public money and also the reputation of the racing industry. Judicial Committees must be zealous to see that both of these are safeguarded.
[35] The Committee is satisfied that, viewed objectively, Miss Lunn exercised poor judgement on this occasion to the extent that it prevented CHILLYDIP from, effectively, taking any part in the finish. Any inexperience on Miss Lunn’s part does not account for the absence of any effort on her part to allow her horse to participate or compete to any real effect in the finish of the race.
[36] The Committee was satisfied that Miss Lunn failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures as alleged.
Decision
[37] The Committee found the charge proved.
Penalty Submissions by the Informant
[38] Mr Ray submitted that Miss Lunn carried with her the weight of public money and the integrity of the racing industry.
[39] He submitted that the breach should be dealt with by way of a suspension. Breaches of the particular Rule are serious and require serious penalties. He did not seek any fine in addition to a suspension.
[40] He submitted that Miss Lunn’s licence to ride should be suspended for a period of 6 weeks.
[41] Mr Ray stated that the Penalty Guide suggested a starting point of 6 calendar weeks’ suspension for a breach of the Rule.
Penalty Submissions by the Respondent
[42] Mr Harris referred to the schedule of previous penalties presented by Mr Ray and submitted that in only one of the eight was a term of suspension as long as 6 weeks imposed. A suspension of 6 weeks he described as “very harsh, extremely harsh” in the light of those previous penalties. He submitted that a lesser term of suspension was appropriate.
[43] Miss Lunn was an apprentice who, from the very beginning, had shown ability. She is in racing “for the long haul”, Mr Harris said
[44] The matter of a 7-days’ deferment was discussed and upcoming South Island race dates were looked at. Mr Harris confirmed on behalf of Miss Lunn that she would not have any riding engagements in the North Island during the next 6 weeks.
Reasons for Penalty
[45] In determining penalty, the Committee had regard to Miss Lunn’s previous good record, she not having breached the Rule previously. It also took into account Miss Lunn’s relative inexperience. These were clearly mitigating factors.
[46] Nevertheless, any breach of the Rule is serious. As always, the Committee was mindful of the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing.
[47] Miss Lunn’s ride on this occasion fell well short of the required standard. However, the Committee accepts that it was a case of genuine bad judgement on her part which can be put down, at least in part, to her inexperience.
[48] The period of 6 weeks submitted by Mr Ray and suggested in the Penalty Guide is a severe penalty for a rider at the stage Miss Lunn is at in her career.
[49] The Committee is of the view that a suspension for a period of 4 weeks will at the same time serve to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing, adequately punish the breach and provide a sufficient deterrent to Miss Lunn from re-offending.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[50] The Committee announced that Miss Lunn’s Apprentice Jockey’s licence was to be suspended for a period of 4 weeks.
[51] Miss Lunn indicated that she did not wish to apply for a deferment.
[52] Accordingly, Miss Lunn was suspended for a period of 4 weeks commencing on 21 February 2012 up to and including 20 March 2012. This period encompassed 7 riding days.
Costs
[53] Mr George sought an award of costs in favour of the Racing Integrity Unit.
[54] Costs were reserved. The Racing Integrity is to file submissions relating to costs by 28 February 2012. Miss Lunn is to file submissions in reply within 7 days of the service on her of the Racing Integrity Unit’s submissions.
Decision on Costs
[55] In written submissions filed, the Racing Integrity Unit has submitted that it is “entitled to recover actual cost that has been incurred for the purpose of conducting this successful charge”. The “actual cost” claimed comprised the cost of transcribing the raceday interview ($210) and one-half of Mr George’s airfare ($373).
[56] No submissions in relation to costs were received from Miss Lunn.
[57] The charge in this case arose from a raceday riding breach by Miss Lunn of the Rules of Racing. Of course, she had the right to defend the charge and put the Informant to the task of proving his allegation to the Committee’s satisfaction and to present her defence to the charge before a Judicial Committee. Miss Lunn elected to defend the charge, albeit unsuccessfully.
[58] It is a well-accepted principle that an Informant is entitled to recover costs, at the discretion of the Judicial Committee, against a Respondent who unsuccessfully defends a charge in the nature of disciplinary proceedings such as drug-related charges, misconduct or the like. However, in the view of the Committee it is not the practice of Judicial Committees to award costs to a successful Informant in a case arising out of a riding charge. This is the case whether the charge is defended or not and whether it is heard on a raceday or not. The Committee is not aware of a single case where costs have been so awarded.
[59] A jockey must be given the right to defend a raceday riding-related charge, whether heard on the raceday or not, without fear that an award of costs will follow an unsuccessful defence.
[60] In this case, the Racing Integrity Unit elected not to charge Miss Lunn on raceday but rather to continue to investigate the matter and subsequently file an information to be heard as a non-raceday hearing. The charge could have been brought on the day and Miss Lunn may have elected to have it heard on that day. In that case, quite clearly, the issue of costs would not have arisen. Miss Lunn should not be required to pay costs in these circumstances
[61] There will be no order for costs.
R G McKENZIE J M PHELAN
Chairman Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 633(1)(b)
Informant: Mr AL Ray - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr CJ George - Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr PDJ Harris - Licensed Public Trianer assisting Ms Lunn, Mr JM McLaughlin - Registrar
Respondent: Ms C Lunn - Apprentice Jockey Class B
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: