NZ Metro TC – 17 November 2006 –
ID: JCA18302
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision: --
An information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr L. C. Driver, licensed trainer of "Express Ball" (13), alleging a breach of Rule 834(2)(a). It was alleged that Mr Taylor late scratched his horse "Express Ball" (13) from Race 8 at 7-45am today.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--An information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr L. C. Driver, licensed trainer of "Express Ball" (13), alleging a breach of Rule 834(2)(a). It was alleged that Mr Taylor late scratched his horse "Express Ball" (13) from Race 8 at 7-45am today. The reason for the late scratching was that the horse had been sold. The charge reads as follows.
------"I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 834(2) (a) in that Trainer L. Driver scratched Express Ball at 7-45am after the official re-entry time of 7-30am."
--Rule 834(2)(a) provides as follows.
--"After the official right of re-entry time no person shall scratch a horse
--from a race unless there are sufficient circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched full details of which shall be given to the Stipendiary Steward in writing."
--Mr Driver had indicated on the Information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Driver also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
--Mr Escott gave evidence that the scratching dead line for today's races was
--7-30am. Mr Driver had advised that the horse was being scratched at 7-45am. No other horse was denied a start as a result of this late scratching. Mr Escott said that he understood that the horse had been sold and that this was the reason for the late scratching.
--Mr Driver gave evidence that the horse had been sold and that it was a condition of the sale that the horse should not race today. He also said that he was aware that the money had arrived for the sale, but that if it had not he would have started the horse. Mr Driver also said that he could have scratched the horse as early as 5-00am that morning, but did not think there would be anyone available to take his call. He said that he decided to wait as he wanted to make the phone call at a more "civil" time.
--Mr Driver also said that he was aware that no other horse would be deprived of a start because of his horse being scratched. He believed that there should be some leniency on this occasion.
--It was also discussed that this breach of the Rules is covered by Rule 1008, which provides as follows.
------"In the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any proceeding for a breach of these Rules:-
--- --
- it shall not be necessary for the informant to prove that the defendant or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and --
- any breach of a Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability."
After hearing the evidence we advised the parties that we were satisfied that the charge had been proved.
--Penalty: Mr Escott recommended a fine of $200-00 for this breach. Mr Driver said that he considered the fine to be excessive, and that a fine of $50-00 would be more appropriate.
--We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty, and on looking at previous penalties we found that a fine of $200-00 was typical for an admitted breach of this Rule. We took into account that no horse was denied a start for this breach, and that Mr Driver had notified the scratching a short time after the dead line. On the other hand Mr Driver could not be given credit for a guilty plea.
--Taking all the above matters into account we were satisfied that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case and Mr Driver was fined this amount.
----
JM Phelan
--CHAIRMAN
Decision Date: 17/11/2006
Publish Date: 17/11/2006
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: 00309d40e0adcdab03ab92cd67847eec
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 17/11/2006
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: NZ Metro TC - 17 November 2006 -
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
--An information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr L. C. Driver, licensed trainer of "Express Ball" (13), alleging a breach of Rule 834(2)(a). It was alleged that Mr Taylor late scratched his horse "Express Ball" (13) from Race 8 at 7-45am today.
--
DECISION AND REASONS:
--An information was lodged by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott against Mr L. C. Driver, licensed trainer of "Express Ball" (13), alleging a breach of Rule 834(2)(a). It was alleged that Mr Taylor late scratched his horse "Express Ball" (13) from Race 8 at 7-45am today. The reason for the late scratching was that the horse had been sold. The charge reads as follows.
------"I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 834(2) (a) in that Trainer L. Driver scratched Express Ball at 7-45am after the official re-entry time of 7-30am."
--Rule 834(2)(a) provides as follows.
--"After the official right of re-entry time no person shall scratch a horse
--from a race unless there are sufficient circumstances which warrant the horse being scratched full details of which shall be given to the Stipendiary Steward in writing."
--Mr Driver had indicated on the Information that he did not admit this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Driver also agreed that he understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.
--Mr Escott gave evidence that the scratching dead line for today's races was
--7-30am. Mr Driver had advised that the horse was being scratched at 7-45am. No other horse was denied a start as a result of this late scratching. Mr Escott said that he understood that the horse had been sold and that this was the reason for the late scratching.
--Mr Driver gave evidence that the horse had been sold and that it was a condition of the sale that the horse should not race today. He also said that he was aware that the money had arrived for the sale, but that if it had not he would have started the horse. Mr Driver also said that he could have scratched the horse as early as 5-00am that morning, but did not think there would be anyone available to take his call. He said that he decided to wait as he wanted to make the phone call at a more "civil" time.
--Mr Driver also said that he was aware that no other horse would be deprived of a start because of his horse being scratched. He believed that there should be some leniency on this occasion.
--It was also discussed that this breach of the Rules is covered by Rule 1008, which provides as follows.
------"In the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any proceeding for a breach of these Rules:-
--- --
- it shall not be necessary for the informant to prove that the defendant or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and --
- any breach of a Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability."
Penalty:
Mr Escott recommended a fine of $200-00 for this breach. Mr Driver said that he considered the fine to be excessive, and that a fine of $50-00 would be more appropriate.--We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty, and on looking at previous penalties we found that a fine of $200-00 was typical for an admitted breach of this Rule. We took into account that no horse was denied a start for this breach, and that Mr Driver had notified the scratching a short time after the dead line. On the other hand Mr Driver could not be given credit for a guilty plea.
--Taking all the above matters into account we were satisfied that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case and Mr Driver was fined this amount.
----
JM Phelan
--CHAIRMAN
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 834.2.a
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: