Invercargill HRC 18 May 2025 – R4 – Max Hill

BACKGROUND

Following the running of Race 4, Junior Driver Max Hill admitted a breach of Rule 869(7A)(a). The particulars of the charge were that, when driving ROBYNS HUSTLER, he struck a track marker on the final bend.

Rule 869(7A) provides that:

Every driver who moves inwards shall ensure:

(a) that contact is not made with any track marker.

As a Junior Driver, the Respondent was permitted to call on a support person to be present for the hearing of the charge. Mr Hill declined this opportunity.

At the start of the hearing, Mr Hill confirmed his understanding of the Rule and the nature of this charge, along with his admission of the breach.

EVIDENCE

Mr Munro used the available race videos to identify Mr Hill, driving ROBYNS HUSTLER, trailing the leader on the home turn. Mr Hill was shown contacting the final track marker before the passing lane. This track marker was 200 metres from the finish. The Respondent had not run over or stepped inside the marker, Mr Munro said. He had simply brushed it.

ROBYNS HUSTLER finished 3rd, 0.8 lengths ahead of the horse placed 4th. In assessing the contact with the marker, Stewards concluded that no advantage was gained.

Mr Hill said he looked down and tried to avoid the marker, but had not done so. He said his horse wore a rein pricker and had ducked in a little bit. He did not offer this as the reason for hitting the marker.

DECISION

As Mr Hill has admitted the breach, it is found to be proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Stewards produced the Respondent’s record, which showed that Mr Hill had had 89 drives this season and 146 the last. His lifetime drives stood at 586. He was described as a very busy Southland Junior Driver, who occasionally drives further north.

Mr Munro said that a breach of this nature was normally dealt with by way of a Minor Infringement Notice (MIN), with the Penalty Guide providing a $100 fine for a first or second breach. Stewards had brought the charge before the Adjudicative Committee because this was the third breach of the Rule by Mr Hill within the 120 day reset period.

Mr Hill had breached the Rule on 16 February and 12 March of this year, and was fined $100 on each of those occasions.

A third breach of the Rule was rare, Mr Munro said, and normally attracted an increased fine. He submitted that any uplift should be minimal, given the “very minor” misjudgement by Mr Hill.

Mr Hill said that the penalty should reflect the minor nature of the breach and his status as a Junior Driver.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

Mr Hill brushed the final track marker before the passing lane and, at the point of contact, appeared to have firm control of ROBYNS HUSTLER. A review of the race videos did not show any significant behavioural problems or waywardness by the horse leading up to the contact with the marker.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied the breach resulted from a slight misjudgement by Mr Hill, and that no advantage was gained.

A first or second breach of the Rule is dealt with as a Minor Infringement and is subject to a penalty of a $100 fine. A third such breach within the 120 day reset period is relatively rare, and typically attracts an increased fine.

The Dickie Decision of 2 February 2025 offers a helpful precedent. It also involved a third breach of r 869(7A)(a) that was described as “very minor in nature.” As in this case, the breach did not result in any discernible advantage. A fine of $150 was deemed approprpriate in light of the Respondent’s record.

Here, apart from Mr Hill’s record, there are no aggravating factors. Having considered his Junior Driver status, the Adjudicative Committee finds this is not a mitigating factor. Mr Hill is relatively experienced and, for this particular breach and in the interests of consistency, there is no reason to depart from the penalty in Dickie.

CONCLUSION

Junior Driver Max Hill is fined $150.