Thames HRC – 11 January 2009 – Race 5

An information filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead against Junior Horseman Mr S Jones, driver of DARK HERO, alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) in that he displayed a lack of control which resulted in his horse breaking badly from its gait and running out causing a severe check to SATIRE and interference to MAKSART shortly after the start.

An information filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr J Muirhead against Junior Horseman Mr S Jones, driver of DARK HERO, alleging a breach of Rule 869(4) in that he displayed a lack of control which resulted in his horse breaking badly from its gait and running out causing a severe check to SATIRE and interference to MAKSART shortly after the start.

Mr Jones denied the breach and was present at the hearing assisted by Senior Horseman Mr D Butcher.

Mr Muirhead demonstrated the incident by use of the video film. He said Mr Jones had struck the horse six times with the whip and then stopped hitting the horse, niggled at the horse twice, the horse then breaking and running outwards checking SATIRE which in turn caused interference to MAKSART which also broke. Mr Muirhead said the horseman was short of the standard required and Mr Jones should have shown greater control. Mr Muirhead referred to the initial outward movement and Mr Jones using the reins and then tapping the horse with his whip which was at the time breaking or about to break. Cross examined by Mr Butcher, Mr Muirhead acknowledged that the horse had not gone rough before it galloped. Stipendiary Steward Mr T Taumanu gave evidence. He said his concern was the use of the whip after the horse had drifted outwards and then galloped. He said Mr Jones had made no attempt to correct the outward movement and that there was no evidence that the horse had shied at the winning post. He pointed out that there was no movement of the horse's head or ears. He said it was a 'no no' to hit the horse after it had broken. Cross examined by Mr Butcher, Mr Taumanu said the horse had initially drifted out but later ducked out.

Mr Jones said that he had attempted to lead, the horse was at full speed, looked at the post and shied away, galloped without warning and he was pulling on the inside rein but the horse has not got a great mouth. He said the horse might have hit himself, didn't respond and ran outwards. Mr Muirhead asked Mr Jones why he hit the horse if he was trying to correct it. Mr Jones said that the whip was flopping and he was trying to get the horse to concentrate. He said there was a split second between the horse galloping and him hitting it with the whip. Mr Butcher said that there was a short time for Mr Jones to make his decision and that the horse had drifted initially and then Mr Jones stopped hitting it and there was then a tap with the whip to try to get the horse to concentrate.

At the end of the evidence I amended the charge by deleting the words 'breaking badly from its gait and'. The charge then reads 'Junior Horseman S. Jones displayed a lack of control which resulted in DARK HERO running out causing a severe check to SATIRE and interference to MAKSART shortly after the start'. I put the amended charge to Mr Jones and he still pleaded not guilty. I explained that because of the amended charge there was the right for further evidence and comments. Neither party had anything more to say.

DECISION and REASONS:

I prefer to accept the evidence of Mr Taumanu that DARK HERO did not shy at the winning post. In my opinion the horse drifted outwards because of the use of the whip by Mr Jones. I prefer and accept the evidence of Mr Taumanu that Mr Jones either took no steps or at least insufficient steps to correct the outward movement. The responsibility of Mr Jones when the horse broke was to immediately take hold of it. He didn't. He then hit the horse once more with the whip which was not only likely to cause the horse to again move outwards, but in fact did so. That outward movement was sharp and caused interference to SATIRE with resultant interference to MAKSART. The charge is proven.

PENALTY:

Mr Muirhead suggested a fine of $500 or a three day suspension. He referred me to the driving record of Mr Jones. This shows that on 20.1.08 Mr Jones was suspended for five days for careless driving. On 22.3.08 he was fined $200 for careless driving. On 3.4.08 he was suspended for two weeks for careless driving. On 15.8.08 he was suspended for three weeks for careless driving. On 16.10.08 he was fined $300 for a breach of Rule 869(4).

Mr Butcher said he thought the recommendation was harsh and that a fine of $200 would suffice. He said he still believed that Mr Jones was not guilty.

Mr Jones said he agreed with what Mr Butcher said, namely that the recommendation was harsh and that he would prefer a fine to a suspension.

In fixing penalty I have taken into account the following matters:

--
1. The driving record of Mr Jones. --
2. The submissions of Mr Muirhead. --
3. The submissions of Mr Butcher. --
4. The submissions of Mr Jones. --
5. The offending is above the midpoint on the scale of seriousness - two horses were interfered with and their chances severely affected. --
6. The recommended starting point for penalty for a breach of this nature is a fine of $400 and/or two weeks suspension. --
7. Mr Jones is a Junior Horseman.

Balancing all of those matters, I impose a fine of $500.

B Rowe

Chairman