NZ Metro TC 10 May 2024 – R3 – John Morrison

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 3, Coca-Cola Mobile Pace, Licensed Open Driver, John Charles Morrison, denied a charge that, as the Driver of HARRISON in the Race, he drove carelessly in that he “shifted ground outwards locking wheels with DESTINY DANCE (Samantha Ottley) resulting in checks to SHARDS MATRIX and THE REAL McCOY which broke losing all chance near the 850 metres.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(3)  No driver in any race shall drive:-

     (b)  carelessly

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, had Steward, Shane Renault, point out the two runners on video replays of the incident with approximately 850 metres to race. Mr Renault pointed out HARRISON, driven by the Respondent, about to become 3-places back out in the one-out line, and DESTINY DANCE, driven by Ms Ottley, racing 3-wide to its outside.

Mr Williams said that Stewards were alleging that the Respondent’s actions forced Ms Ottley’s runner to lock wheels.

Manager of Stewards, Nigel McIntyre, said that the Respondent was in a position to shift outwards, having an advantage over Ms Ottley. However, he said, in shifting outwards, he did so in an abrupt fashion, resulting in Ms Ottley having to “grab” her horse. He pointed out on the video replay, Ms Ottley go up in the cart. Two trailing runners were affected – SHARDS MATRIX (Sarah O’Reilly), which was racing directly behind Ms Ottley, and THE REAL McCOY (Carter Dalgety), which had been following SHARDS MATRIX, was also checked and galloped out of it, Mr McIntyre said. The Respondent’s shift had not been done in a safe and gradual manner, Mr McIntyre alleged, and he had caused interference.

Mr Williams said that Ms Ottley had told Stewards, post-race, that she had no opportunity to correct her runner. The Respondent’s actions had been too quick, over a short distance, she had said. Mr Williams told the Adjudicative Committee that the Stewards did not intend to call Ms Ottley. The Adjudicative Committee gave the Respondent the opportunity to have Ms Ottley called, but he declined.

The Respondent said that his horse was “a big-striding horse” and it had struck the wheels in behind the mobile gate. His original plan was to go back and “sit in”, because the horse had had a hard run in its last start and had faded out. It started to overrace and tap the wheels, so he decided to go round the field. Passing the winning post, he had to take a trail behind WOTSONYAMIND (Blair Orange), and his horse began to strike the wheels and overrace again. He added that he had loaned his shaft sulky extensions to another Trainer and they had not been returned. When he restrained the horse, it had taken Mr Orange some time to get around his horse, as it was getting back on the wheels, he said. The more he took a hold, the worse it got.

The Respondent said that there had been a gap for some distance, approximately 100 metres, he submitted. He had pulled back safely, he submitted, still hitting the wheels and just as he was about to come out, Ms Ottley had seen him and had gone forward. He was concerned that his own runner may choke down. His sulky was shorter than Ms Ottley’s. The combination of him going backwards and Ms Ottley going forward resulting in them coming together. There were a number of factors at play, he submitted.

Mr Williams said that Stewards believed that Ms Ottley was attempting to concede at the time, anticipating the Respondent’s movement, but did not have time to react to it.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Shifting Ground Regulation provides:

Where a horse does not have clear passage during a race the driver shall be permitted to shift ground:

2. Outwards and ease another runner up the track provided the horse to be shifted outwards is in a position to be moved out without causing interference to that or any other horse . . .

       For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:

       The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure the move is made with safety and does not cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.

The Respondent raised a number of matters by way of explaining his actions. The Adjudicative Committee has given consideration to the various matters that he raised. At the end of the day, the Adjudicative Committee is not satisfied that those matters amount to a defence to the charge that he drove carelessly.

We have carefully viewed the video replays shown at the hearing, and listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties.

We find that, while the Respondent had the necessary advantage over Ms Ottley to be able to shift her outwards, his actions in doing so have caused interference to Ms Ottley. His actions in moving outwards and easing her up track, we find, were not done in a “gradual and acceptable manner”, as required by the Regulation.

It was clear to the Adjudicative Committee that Ms Ottley has not been able to accommodate the Respondent’s manoeuvre. We were told that Ms Ottley confirmed this when spoken to by Stewards, the Respondent’s movement being too abrupt, we were told. The Respondent did not wish to question Ms Ottley, so we take him to accept that is what she said.

The Adjudicative Committee finds that the Respondent has driven carelessly.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Williams said that the Respondent has had 215 drives this season and 531 last season. He has two recent careless driving breaches on his record. At Rangiora HRC on 3 May last, he was fined $250 for careless driving striking a wheel. He was then suspended for careless driving striking a wheel at Addington on 8 May 2024 and received a 2-day suspension. The present breach is therefore a third breach of the Careless Driving Rule, Mr Williams said.

Mr Williams said that the Penalty Guide starting point for a second breach is a 4-day suspension. Stewards were submitting that a suspension of not less than 4 days would be appropriate, he said

The Respondent repeated that there were other factors involved, and he asked the Adjudicative Committee to take them into account. He had been put under pressure early in the Race, and at the time, for various reasons, he submitted. Referring to the previous breaches, he submitted that they involved totally different circumstances from the present breach. They were minor compared to the present breach, he submitted.

Mr Williams informed the Adjudicative Committee that the Respondent will be commencing a term of suspension on 18 May 2024 and ending on 23 May next 2024.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

This is the Respondent’s third breach of careless driving. It just so happens that the previous two breaches, involving striking a wheel, have occurred within the last 10 days.

The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (February 2023) suggests a starting point of a 4-day suspension for a third careless driving breach. The Adjudicative Committee assesses the breach as being mid-range. There are no aggravating factors.

The Adjudicative Committee has had regard to two factors in arriving at a penalty of a 3-day suspension.  Firstly, the contributing factors put forward by the Respondent by way of his unsuccessful defence. Secondly, the valid point made by the Respondent in his penalty submissions that the two recent breaches of the Rule both involved striking a wheel, and were relatively minor.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY:

Licensed Open Driver, John Morrison, is suspended from after the close of racing on 23 May 2024 up to and including 2 June 2024 – 3 days.