Reefton TC – 17 April 2009 – Race 2
ID: JCA21276
Hearing Type (Code):
harness-racing
Decision:
Following the running of Race 2, the Mike Stratford Property Developments Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging that Mr S. J. McNally committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b). The information reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b) in that S. R. McNally allowed the sulky wheel of WINDING DOWN to protrude inside the marker line prior to the passing lane when anticipating a clear run which didn’t eventuate due to the tiring ULTIMATE INDA POCKET (I. L. Schwamm).”
--
Following the running of Race 2, the Mike Stratford Property Developments Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging that Mr S. J. McNally committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b). The information reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b) in that S. R. McNally allowed the sulky wheel of WINDING DOWN to protrude inside the marker line prior to the passing lane when anticipating a clear run which didn’t eventuate due to the tiring ULTIMATE INDA POCKET (I. L. Schwamm).”
--Rules 869(7A)(b) provides as follows.
--”(7A) Every horseman who moves inwards shall ensure:
(a) …..
(b) that any part of the sulky does not protrude inside the marker line
(c) …..
It shall be a defence to a breach of this sub-rule if the horseman establishes that the breach was attributable to the behaviour of his own horse or any other horse or horseman in the race.”
Mr McNally had indicated on the information that he admitted this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
--Mr Escott used video coverage to show that Mr McNally was in the trail behind “Ultimate Inda Pocket” on entering the home straight, and he was looking to make his run along the passing lane. Before the passing lane became fully available Mr McNally tried to pass “Ultimate Inda Pocket” on the inside, but in doing so he struck one marker with his wheel, and his wheel went inside the black and white marker which indicates the start of the passing lane.
--Mr McNally did not dispute the facts. He explained that his horse got keen when it saw a gap appear.
--Penalty:
--Mr Escott advised that Mr McNally had no previous relevant convictions for a breach of this Rule, and recommended a fine of $250-00. Mr McNally thought the amount recommended was a bit high.
--We retired to consider our decision on penalty. We looked at fines imposed for previous breaches of this Rule, but found nothing that was of assistance. We also referred to the Judicial Control Authority Penalty Guide which recommended that an appropriate starting point for a breach of this Rule was a fine of $200-00.
--We were satisfied that Mr McNally should be given credit for his admission of this breach, and his clear record. On the other hand we agreed with Mr Escott that Mr McNally had gained some advantage through this breach. We decided that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case, and on returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties of our decision and our reasons for it.
--J. M. Phelan
Chairman
67927
Decision Date: 17/04/2009
Publish Date: 17/04/2009
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: 89dc07dfc0b1b7d3656501a999826473
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: harness-racing
startdate: 17/04/2009
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Reefton TC - 17 April 2009 - Race 2
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Following the running of Race 2, the Mike Stratford Property Developments Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging that Mr S. J. McNally committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b). The information reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b) in that S. R. McNally allowed the sulky wheel of WINDING DOWN to protrude inside the marker line prior to the passing lane when anticipating a clear run which didn’t eventuate due to the tiring ULTIMATE INDA POCKET (I. L. Schwamm).”
--
Following the running of Race 2, the Mike Stratford Property Developments Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward Mr N. R. Escott alleging that Mr S. J. McNally committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b). The information reads as follows.
--“I the above named informant allege that the above named Defendant committed a breach of Rule 869(7A)(b) in that S. R. McNally allowed the sulky wheel of WINDING DOWN to protrude inside the marker line prior to the passing lane when anticipating a clear run which didn’t eventuate due to the tiring ULTIMATE INDA POCKET (I. L. Schwamm).”
--Rules 869(7A)(b) provides as follows.
--”(7A) Every horseman who moves inwards shall ensure:
(a) …..
(b) that any part of the sulky does not protrude inside the marker line
(c) …..
It shall be a defence to a breach of this sub-rule if the horseman establishes that the breach was attributable to the behaviour of his own horse or any other horse or horseman in the race.”
Mr McNally had indicated on the information that he admitted this breach of the Rules and he confirmed this at the hearing. He also agreed that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule it was brought under.
--Mr Escott used video coverage to show that Mr McNally was in the trail behind “Ultimate Inda Pocket” on entering the home straight, and he was looking to make his run along the passing lane. Before the passing lane became fully available Mr McNally tried to pass “Ultimate Inda Pocket” on the inside, but in doing so he struck one marker with his wheel, and his wheel went inside the black and white marker which indicates the start of the passing lane.
--Mr McNally did not dispute the facts. He explained that his horse got keen when it saw a gap appear.
--Penalty:
--Mr Escott advised that Mr McNally had no previous relevant convictions for a breach of this Rule, and recommended a fine of $250-00. Mr McNally thought the amount recommended was a bit high.
--We retired to consider our decision on penalty. We looked at fines imposed for previous breaches of this Rule, but found nothing that was of assistance. We also referred to the Judicial Control Authority Penalty Guide which recommended that an appropriate starting point for a breach of this Rule was a fine of $200-00.
--We were satisfied that Mr McNally should be given credit for his admission of this breach, and his clear record. On the other hand we agreed with Mr Escott that Mr McNally had gained some advantage through this breach. We decided that a fine of $200-00 was appropriate in this case, and on returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties of our decision and our reasons for it.
--J. M. Phelan
Chairman
67927
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 869.7A.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: