Rangiora HRC – 25 September 2008 – Race 1

hearingid: 40c3e4e790df60d23a4b910a32e8bcb9

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: harness-racing

startdate: 25/09/2008

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Rangiora HRC - 25 September 2008 - Race 1

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Following the running of Race 1, the Angus Ceilings Ltd Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr W. E. Higgs, the driver of “Reklaw’s Boy” (11), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a).   The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that W. E. Higgs  used his  whip excessively on Reklaw’s Boy in the run home.”

Following the running of Race 1, the Angus Ceilings Ltd Pace, an information was laid by Stipendiary Steward Mrs K. R. Williams against Mr W. E. Higgs, the driver of “Reklaw’s Boy” (11), alleging that he had committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a).   The charge reads as follows.

“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(2)(a) in that W. E. Higgs  used his  whip excessively on Reklaw’s Boy in the run home.”

Rule 869(2)(a), so far as it relates to the present charge, reads as follows.

“(2) No horseman shall during any race:-                      

            (a) use his whip in an …. excessive ….manner.”

Mr Higgs had indicated on the information that he did not admit the

breach of this rule and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

Mrs Williams gave evidence that Mr Higgs was seen to use his whip in an excessive manner in the run home.  Stipendiary Steward Mr McIntyre used video coverage of the incident to show that Mr Higgs had used his whip on 18 occasions in the last 150 metres of the race, and that this use was continuous except for one brief pause.  It was also the evidence of the Stipendiary Stewards that Mr Higgs had used his whip outside the “Use of the Whip” guidelines (the “guidelines”).

Mr Higgs denied that his use of the whip was excessive.  During his evidence he agreed that he was aware of the guidelines.

Mr Higgs’ first defence to this charge was that nowhere in the Rules does it state how many times it is permissible to use a whip.  Mr Higgs is correct in what he says.  However the Rule he is charged under simply provides that it is a breach of the Rule to use his whip in an excessive manner.  Secondly Mr Higgs said that he did not believe that his use of the whip was excessive.

The guidelines have been formulated to assist drivers to determine what is or is not “excessive”. 

So far as they relate to this charge the guidelines provide as follows –

“Excessive use of the whip simply means “too much” and relates to the number of times and/or the force with which the whip is used.

            Applies whether striking the horse, harness or sulky.

A horse does not need to be marked for an excessive charge to be preferred.

Subject to the provisions of Rule 869(2), no horseman shall use the whip

continuously at any time during a race, and there must be distinct pauses between the whip being used or use of the whip shall be interrupted by acceptable alternative actions.

These actions include:-

i)          Running the rein(s) over the horses rump

ii)         Touching or holding the whip on the top of the horse’s tail or rump

iii)                Running the whip through the horses tail”

A charge against a driver must only relate to the Rule he is charged under, and it is not an offence to breach these guidelines.  The guidelines do however help drivers when they make a decision as to the manner in which they use the whip.  If a driver has complied with the guidelines he should expect not to be charged, but it is for this Judicial Committee to determine what is excessive, and it is the overall use of the whip that is taken into account.

Our finding is that Mr Higgs breached the Rule by using his whip on 18 occasions, with no distinct pauses, in the last 150 metres of the race.  Accordingly we find the charge proved.

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.  On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised that a full written decision would be given later, and we gave the following oral decision.

“Having heard the evidence and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied that you used your whip on 18 occasions from about the 150 metre mark.  In using your whip you did pause briefly on one occasion.  We are satisfied that the use of the whip was clearly outside the “Use of the Whip” guidelines and we find the charge proved.”

Penalty:

Mrs Williams advised that Mr Higgs had no previous relevant convictions and recommended a fine of $200-00.  On being asked for his comments on the suggested penalty Mr Higgs said that he thought the fine recommended was “fair”.

We were satisfied that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case and accordingly Mr Higgs was fined the sum of $200-00.

J.  M. Phelan

Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 869.2.a, 869.2

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: