Appeal – Written Decision dated 19 June 2025 – Nathan Williamson

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. On 1 June 2025, the Ashburton Trotting Club held a meeting at the Ashburton Raceway. Race 9 on the card was the Rakaia NZ Sapling Stakes, a Group 2 Event.

1.2. The Appellant was the Driver of SIMPLY AMAZING and following that event, was charged with a breach of Rule 869(2) of Harness Racing New Zealand Rules (“The Rules”). That Rule provides:

“No driver shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Whip Regulations made by the Board.”

1.3. The Whip and Rein Regulations provide:

3.1 “A driver may only apply the whip in a wrist only flicking motion whilst holding a rein in each hand with the tip of the whip pointing forward in an action which does not engage the shoulder.

3.2 For the purposes of clause 3.1, “wrist only flicking motion” means:

3.2.1 Ensuring no force is generated by the use of the elbow or shoulder when applying the Whip”

1.4. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.

1.5. Prior to going onto the track for Race 9, the Appellant was advised by a Stipendiary Steward that a charge under the same Rule would issue in respect of his drive in Race 8. The Appellant acknowledged he had been advised of this by the Stipendiary Steward.

1.6. The Adjudicative Committee imposed a penalty for the admitted breach in Race 8. That penalty was imposed as a first breach within the reset period. The penalty imposed was in accordance with the Penalty Guide.

1.7. The Adjudicative Committee then also adopted the Penalty Guide in assessing penalty for the breach in Race 9. The Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of a six-day suspension and then reduced that by one day, having regard to mitigating factors. The penalty imposed was a five-day suspension.

1.8. The Appellant appeals the five-day suspension penalty in respect of his admitted breach of the Rule in Race 9.

2. APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS

2.1. In both the Notice of Appeal which was filed by the Appellant and in submissions before this Tribunal, the Appellant took the view the penalty imposed was “ludicrous” for such a low-level breach. He pointed out the Adjudicative Committee had agreed the breach was low end.

2.2. In his words he “cannot get his head around” such a penalty for a minor low-level breach. The financial consequences far outweigh the gravity of the offence.

2.3. Even when the provisions of the Penalty Guide were explained to the Appellant, he maintained the view the penalty was manifestly excessive for his actions. There were no other submissions made by the Appellant in support of his appeal. His grounds for his appeal were simply the penalty was excessive for such a low-level breach of the Rule.

3. RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS

3.1. Mr Renault, on behalf of the Respondent, filed helpful written submissions.

3.2. It was the view of the Respondent, the penalty was appropriate and was consistent with other breaches and penalties, which have previously been imposed.

3.3. There were a number of previous instances quoted for the Appeals Tribunal’s benefit. Some involved visiting Australian Drivers, but Mr Renault particularly referred it to the very recent instance of RIB v O Thornley. This involved a Group 2 Race where the Driver used her whip in a continuous manner over the initial stages of the race. The Adjudicative Committee on that occasion, also found the breach to be low level and imposed a suspension of six days and in addition, imposed a fine of $200. The fine arose as a consequence of being a percentage of the Driver’s fee in a Group Race.

3.4. In the case of Thornley, this was an admitted breach and a second breach of the Rule within the reset period.

3.5. The Respondent was very strongly of the view, the penalty imposed was not in error. Rather, the penalty was fair, reasonable and entirely appropriate.

3.6. Concern was raised, that if the appeal was allowed, then this would create a significant precedent away from the consistent penalties, which have been adopted by Adjudicative Committees.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. The Appeal is being conducted as a rehearing pursuant to Rule 1206(1) of the Rules and further, in accordance with Part 3 of the Fifth Schedule to the Regulations, which form part of the Rules. The Appeals Tribunal considered the evidence given before the Adjudicative Committee and also the submissions made. It is incumbent on this Tribunal, to form its own conclusion based on the evidence and submissions received.

4.2. Having said that, the Tribunal also agrees with the comments made in Yesberg v RIB at paragraph 6.2 where it was stated by the Tribunal:

“It is not for the Appeals Tribunal to tinker with the penalty imposed by a Judicial Committee (should read an Adjudicative Committee). The penalty can only be changed if it is demonstrated to be significantly in error. That has not been demonstrated here. The Tribunal was of the view that the penalty imposed was entirely appropriate”.

4.3. Since 1 February 2023, the Penalty Guide issued by Harness Racing New Zealand, has provided a starting point for a second breach of the Whip and Rein Regulations in a Group 2 Race, to be a seven-day suspension. Ample communication has been given to both the NZ Trainers and Drivers Association by direct communication and also using social media channels of the updated Penalty Guide.

4.4. Prior to going onto the track for Race 9, Stipendiary Stewards advised the Appellant of the pending charge for the previous event. He was therefore fully aware there was a charge for a prior breach pending.

4.5. The Penalty Guide provides a seven-day suspension for a second breach in a Group 2 Race. The Guide assumes a mid-level breach. The Adjudicative Committee, having found this to be a low-level breach, therefore adopted a starting point of a six-day suspension. The Appeals Tribunal does not find fault with that action taken by the Adjudicative Committee.

4.6. There was then a one-day reduction applied for the mitigating circumstances, being a good record under the Rule, and the admission of the breach. A suspension of five days was noted by the Adjudicative Committee, as being a significant penalty.

4.7. Given the prior breach was in the race immediately preceding Race 9, it is difficult to see any reason to reduce the penalty further than the five-day suspension imposed by the Adjudicative Committee.

4.8. It appears to this Tribunal, the complaint of the Appellant should not be taken up by way of appeal, but rather by way of submission to Harness Racing New Zealand. If the Appellant is of the view the Penalty Guide for a breach of this particular Rule is not correct, then he can have that discussion with Harness Racing New Zealand.

4.9. However, for the purposes of consistency, it is entirely appropriate for Adjudicative Committees to continue to reference the Penalty Guide as a starting point. The Penalty Guide is just that – it is a guide – and it should not solely determine penalties which are imposed, but it is a most useful tool in order to maintain consistency in penalties being imposed.

4.10. It has been widely recognised, particularly in recent years, that a firm line will be taken by both Stipendiary Stewards and Adjudicative Committees for any breach of Whip Regulations. This applies to both Thoroughbred and Harness Codes.

4.11. The Appeals Tribunal cannot find fault with the Decision, which is appealed against.

5. DECISION

5.1. The appeal is dismissed.

5.2. Subsequent to the meeting on 1 June and prior to the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant served two days of the suspension. On filing the Notice of Appeal, this Tribunal granted a stay of penalty, pending the hearing of the appeal. Given it is the decision of this Tribunal, that the five-day suspension should stand, it follows there are three days yet to be served.

5.3. Therefore, the Appellant will be suspended from the conclusion of racing on Sunday 15 June 2025, up to and including Sunday 22 June 2025. The days of suspension are:

Forbury Park Trotting Club on 19 June 2025; and
NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club on 20 June 2025 and 22 June 2025.

5.4. The Respondent made no application for costs. The Appellant should however, make a contribution to the costs of establishing this Tribunal and the hearing. The Appeals Tribunal sets that contribution at $750.