Appeal – Written Reserved Decision dated 13 August 2025 – Cheree Wigg

Background

1.  On Sunday 27 July 2025, the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club conducted a race meeting at the Addington Raceway. Race 1 on the programme was the Betavet Herbazole Amateur Drivers Mobile Pace.

2.  Following the running of that race, the Appellant was charged with a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) of the Harness Racing New Zealand Rules (“The Rules”).

3.  That Rule reads:
– “No driver in any race shall drive:
– carelessly”

4.  The charge arose from an incident at the 900m mark, where it was alleged the Appellant drove carelessly by allowing her horse LOVEYOURMOTHER to shift outwards when not entitled to, resulting in LOVEYOURMOTHER being checked and falling to the track.

5.  The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.

6.  The Adjudicative Committee imposed a suspension for the breach. Her Advanced Amateur Licence was suspended from the conclusion of the racing on 27 July 2025, up to and including racing on 27 November 2025.

7.  The Appellant appeals that penalty.

Appellant Submissions

8.  The grounds for the appeal were stated in the Notice of Appeal as:
– “the penalty was too harsh. The penalty was given on comparison to a driver being injured including an operation and 3 months off work”.

9.  Submissions on behalf of the Appellant were given orally by Mr Barron.

10.  The submissions by Mr Barron, primarily focused on identifying aspects of the race as it unfolded. These submissions particularly focused on the point in the race where the fall occurred.

11.  He submitted the outside runners at the point, were in a fan like formation. The Drivers were anticipating others making a run from their respective positions. It was his view, this general movement in the race had created a half gap, which the Appellant endeavoured to fill.

12.  It was further submitted, the horse which was affected by the falling of LOVEYOURMOTHER, being ARCHIE, was effectively in the three wide lane and a gap was available.

13.  The Tribunal reminded Mr Barron the appeal was as to penalty only. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge before the Adjudicative Committee and it was the recommendation of the Tribunal that Mr Barron focus on the issue of penalty, rather than fault.

14.  Mr Barron then referenced the comparative Decision which was referred to by the Adjudicative Committee. This previous Decision involved an incident also at Addington Raceway, but on 17 December 2024. On that occasion, there was a fall where a Driver ended up in hospital and there were a number of horses affected.

15.  It was submitted the Appellant’s actions had affected her own drive and had only marginally affected ARCHIE, who simply lost “a couple of lengths on momentum”.

16.  In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Barron submitted an appropriate penalty would have been a suspension of 2-3 months, but it was difficult to establish what would be appropriate, given amateur driving races are not programmed in advance.

Respondents Submissions

17.  It was submitted by Mr Sole, the Appellant had anticipated a run becoming available to her, which did not eventuate. This put her in a dangerous position, which was the consequence of that anticipation. This led to the fall.

18.  The Respondent supported the penalty imposed by the Adjudicative Committee, by also referencing the Decision of W Frost on 17 December 2024. It was the view of Mr Sole, it could be argued the Adjudicative Committee could have imposed a greater period of suspension than was actually imposed. The carelessness of the Appellant in her driving caused the fall and therefore, there should be no alteration to the penalty and the appeal should be dismissed.

19.  Mr Sole further noted, the Appellant has driven on 16 occasions this season. She has faced two charges of careless driving and had received a warning. One of the charges of careless driving was on 19 March 2025, also at Addington, and therefore, the penalty to be imposed, was as a second offence of careless driving under this Rule.

Discussion

20.  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 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.

21.  As referenced in a very recent Appeal Decision of N Williamson v RIB dated 19 June 2025, approval was given to 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 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”.

22.  The Penalty Guide details appropriate penalties to be considered by Adjudicative Committees. However, the Guide is just that. It is a guide, but a most useful tool in ensuring consistency in penalties, which may be imposed by Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals.

23.  This was the Appellant’s second offence under Rule 869(3)(b). The Guide provides a starting point of a two-month suspension for a second offence, where there is a fall resulting from the carelessness.

24.  The Appellant’s first careless driving offence occurred on 19 March 2025, although it did not involve a fall. Given this offence has occurred within the reset period, it is appropriate to reference the second offence under the Penalty Guide.

25.  It could be said there is a significant uplift from the Guide, for a first offence where there is no fall involved, to a second offence where there is a fall involved.

26.  Nevertheless, the Appeals Tribunal is of the view, the reasoning of the Adjudicative Committee was correct in arriving at the penalty it did.

27.  The Guide provides for a starting point of a two-month suspension for a breach of Rule 869(3)(b) where the carelessness has caused a fall.

28.  As noted by the Adjudicative Committee, it is difficult to determine penalties for Amateur Drivers, given the frequency of programmed Amateur Driver races. This is particularly given they are not programmed in advance.

29.  However, there have been a number of Decisions previously, where the starting Guide has been amended to recognise Amateur Driver races do not take place every week. However, as a general rule, they are usually programmed fortnightly. Therefore, where the Guide makes reference to a period of suspension, it has been common practice of Adjudicative Committees to adopt a starting point, which is uplifted from the period referred to in the Guide. The Appeals Tribunal agrees this is reasonable.

30.  Therefore, the Appeals Tribunal is of the view, the Adjudicative Committee was entitled to adopt a four-month suspension period as a starting point, to recognise the Amateur Driver status of the Appellant. It may be appropriate for Harness Racing New Zealand to make specific reference to principles to be adopted by Adjudicative Committees, when considering penalties to be imposed on Amateur Drivers.

31.  Like the Adjudicative Committee, the Appeals Tribunal does not see any grounds for either mitigation or aggravation from that starting point.

32.  For those reasons, the Appeals Tribunal does not consider the Adjudicative Committee was in error in adopting the penalty it did.

Decision

33.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Costs

34.  The Respondent should make any application for costs within three working days of the date of this Decision. The Appellant should then have a further three working days to respond. Costs in the interim are reserved.