NZ Metro TC – 27 May 2005 – Race 8

Following the running of Race 8 an information was laid by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott, against Mr M. P. Jones the driver of Chief Red Cloud (2) alleging that Mr Jones had committed a breach of Rule 869(4). The charge reads as follows.

"I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(4) in that horseman M. P. Jones (Chief Red Cloud) allowed Chief Red Cloud to shift down the track checking Motu Hat Trick (D. J. Butt) with approx. 50 metres to run."

Rule 869(4) reads as follows.

"No horseman nor any horse shall during any race do anything which

Mr Jones indicated on the information that he did not admit the breach

of this rule, and he confirmed this at the hearing.

Mr Escott called Mr D. J. Butt to give evidence. This witness said that he had Mr Jones on his outside and that Mr Jones gradually moved past him, but in doing moved inwards resulting in him running out of room and being checked. Mr Butt also said that Mr Jones eventually pulled his horse off him.

Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams illustrated this incident by means of video recordings. Mrs Williams showed that the horses concerned were racing beside each other and that Mr Jones horse gradually moved inwards and squeezed Mr Butt's horse for room. As a result Mr Butt's horse broke and lost ground.

Mr Escott said that although Mr Jones's horse did duck in, and although Mr Jones took corrective action, the damage had been done by that stage.

Mr Jones gave evidence that his horse had ducked in and caused the problem, and that he had taken immediate corrective action. It was Mr Jones's evidence that the incident was caused by his horse ducking in.

At the conclusion of the evidence I adjourned to consider my decision. My oral decision was as follows.

"Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage of the incident I am satisfied that you did allow your horse to move inwards as alleged in the Information. By the time you pulled your horse off Mr Butt's horse the damage had been done. I find the charge proved."

PENALTY: Mr Escott advised that the Mr Jones had one previous relevant conviction for careless driving in November 2004. Mr Escott also said that Mr Jones has lots of drives and mistakes do occur. Mr Escott further submitted that this breach was at the lower end of the scale and recommended a fine of $200-00.

Mr Jones had no relevant submissions to make in relation to penalty.

In deciding an appropriate penalty in the case I am aware of penalties imposed for similar breaches in the past. I also take into account that Mr Jones has a lot of drives and that his driving record is very good. I also agree with Mr Escott that this breach is at the lower end of the scale. For all these reason Mr Jones was fined the sum of $200-00.