Egmont RC 15 July 2025 – R4 – Liam Kauri

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 4, the Respondent Apprentice Rider Mr Liam Kauri defended a charge of careless riding, which was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).  The Information alleged that he angled his mount WILLOUGHBY WHITE outwards near the 800 metres when not clear of MINI ORA, which was checked. ANDJUSTLIKETHAT was also hampered then checked.

The Respondent acknowledged he understood the Rule and confirmed he would be defending the charge. Apprentice Mentor Ms Kim Clapperton was present to assist.

Rule 638(1)(d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

Using the back-straight film, Stipendiary Steward Mr Goodwin demonstrated the incident and identified the horses and Riders concerned.

He showed that towards the end of the back straight, several runners were racing hard, with Mr Kauri in a position behind the leader STEWART (M Sanson). He then angled outwards, when not clear of MINI ORA (F Barrett). Ms Barrett was checked and forced further outwards, making firm contact with the hind quarters of ANDJUSTLIKETHAT (M Hudson), who was directly outside her. Ms Hudson had to take evasive action.

Stewards called Ms Frankie Barrett (supported by Trainer Mr A Sharrock) and Ms Hudson as witnesses. Ms Barrett explained that she and Ms Hudson were racing in very close contact, when she received pressure from her inside. The pressure came from Mr Kauri, who was not clear when he shifted outwards. The movement from Mr Kauri forced her outwards, hitting Ms Hudson’s mount. Ms Clapperton questioned Ms Barrett’s evidence, reminding her that immediately after the race, she had conveyed to Ms Clapperton that the pressure had come from Ms Hudson on her outside, not Mr Kauri. Ms Barrett responded that while she and Ms Hudson were racing close together, it was only when she saw the films, that she realised the pressure had in fact come from Mr Kauri’s mount. Ms Clapperton asked Ms Barrett if her horse had overreacted. Ms Barrett said she believed it had, as it was green and wearing blinkers.

In response to questions from the Stewards, Ms Hudson agreed she had been hampered and contacted by Ms Barrett’s mount moving outwards onto her. She also agreed that she had to check a little further on, but did not believe this was due to Mr Kauri moving outwards.

Mr Kauri defended the charge. He said coming into the first bend, he was following the leader when the field fanned out, as they naturally do on a corner. His opinion was that Ms Barrett and Ms Hudson were having a battle of their own, and although  his horse rolled out slightly, that was not the cause of the interference. Ms Clapperton said that Mr Kauri had not moved at all, but had remained behind Ms Sanson. She reiterated that no blame had been placed on Mr Kauri, from Ms Hudson. The second check she received, was the result of getting her horse rebalanced.

Ms Selvakumaran said the films showed that Mr Kauri moved outwards 1 horse-width on the bend. Both Mr Barrett and Ms Hudson were entitled to be where they were and Mr Kauri should have stayed directly behind Ms Sanson. In relation to the second check suffered by Ms Hudson, Ms Selvakumaran pointed to Ms Hudson pulling her horse’s head out and away from Mr Kauri, as evidence that he was coming out onto her.

Decision:

The evidence of  Mr Goodwin, supported by the back-straight film, clearly shows that Mr Kauri angled his mount outwards by approximately one horse-width. At the time Mr Kauri shifted out, he was not clear of MINI ORA, who was forced outward and made heavy contact with the hind quarters of ANDJUSTLIKETHAT. This caused Ms Barrett to check her mount which in turn, resulted in Ms Hudson having to take evasive action.

Both Ms Barrett and Ms Hudson gave evidence confirming they were racing closely together and that pressure was applied from the inside by Mr Kauri. While Ms Barrett initially conveyed, immediately after the race, that the pressure was from Ms Hudson on her outside, she gave a credible explanation that, upon viewing the films, the pressure instead came from Mr Kauri’s outwards movement.

Ms Clapperton, on behalf of Mr Kauri, submitted that the outward movement was minimal and that any interference was attributable to the racing manners of Ms Barrett’s horse, which likely overreacted. However, the films and the evidence of Ms Selvakumaran, establish that the outward movement by Mr Kauri, was the reason for both horses to his outside being hampered. Ms Selvakumaran pointed out that both Ms Barrett and Ms Hudson were fully entitled to their positions and that Mr Kauri’s outward movement was unnecessary.

Although Ms Hudson herself did not directly attribute blame to Mr Kauri for the check she suffered, the film evidence supported the Stewards’ and Ms Barrett’s accounts. The interference was directly attributable to Mr Kauri’s movement and not merely the result of racing circumstances, or the behaviour of other horses.

The charge of careless riding is therefore proved.

Submissions for Penalty:

Stipendiary Steward Ms Selvakumaran produced Mr Kauri’s riding record, which indicated 2 previous breaches under the Careless Riding Rule in the last 12 months, namely:

23/7/24     5 day suspension

17/5/25     5 day suspension

Mr Kauri has had 200 mounts in the past 12 months.

Ms Selvakumaran said Stewards assessed the level of carelessness to be in the mid range, as 2 runners were affected.

On behalf of Mr Kauri, Ms Clapperton outlined mitigating factors as the greenness of MINA ORA, and the only slight degree of outward movement by Mr Kauri.

Reasons for Penalty:

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee carefully considered the submissions from both the Stewards and Ms Clapperton, as well as the relevant Penalty Guidelines.

Mr Kauri shifted his mount only a single horse-width outward. This movement resulted in significant interference, particularly to MINI ORA, who was forced several horses wider, as well as to ANDJUSTLIKETHAT, who was checked. It is accepted that the interference was exacerbated by the competitive positioning of all three horses and the fact that MINI ORA was a novice runner, who may have overreacted.

Taking these circumstances into account, the Adjudicative Committee assessed the level of carelessness to be in the low range, and adopted a 5-day suspension as the starting point in accordance with the NZTR Penalty Guide.

Mr Kauri’s riding record reveals two previous breaches of the Careless Riding Rule in the last 12 months, both resulting in 5-day suspensions (23/7/24 and 17/5/25), from a total of approximately 200 mounts during that period. Breaches have not been frequent.

An aggravating factor is that two horses were affected by the interference. To reflect this, one day is added to the starting penalty.

In mitigation, Mr Kauri’s overall riding record, given his number of rides in the last 12 months, and the fact that this was not a high-level breach, warrant a reduction of one day.

Conclusion:

After balancing the degree of carelessness, the extent of the interference, the number of horses affected, and both aggravating and mitigating factors, a 5-day suspension is considered an appropriate and proportionate penalty.

Mr Kauri’s Licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 5 days, commencing after racing on Thursday July 17th and concluding after racing on Friday July 25th.