Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision 15 March 2023 – Denby-Rose Tait

Introduction

Reasons for decision delivered on 7 March 2023

[1] Denby-Rose Tait (Ms Tait) faces one charge of careless riding pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing (Rules).

[2] The Applicant alleged that in Race 2 at the Ashburton Racing Club’s meeting at Ashburton Racecourse on Thursday, 15 December 2022 (My Boy George Missing JR / Ideal Racing Maiden 1400m Race), Ms Tait rode her mount MISS PEARL in a careless manner, nearing the 350 metre mark by angling her mount outwards to obtain a clear run, in doing so impeding ARCHERFIELD, ridden by Kavish Chowdhoory who was improving to her outside flank.

[3] Ms Tait denied the charge.

[4] The Adjudicative Committee considered all the written and oral evidence and reviewed and assessed the Race film and was satisfied that Ms Tait’s riding was careless in the mid-range and that the charge was proved.

[5] After hearing submissions from Counsel as to penalty, the Adjudicative Committee imposed a suspension of Ms Tait’s licence for 6 weeks.

[6] The Rules of Racing require a determination of the commencement date where there are committed riding engagements of up to 10 days. The suspension commences at the conclusion of racing on 10 March 2023 and end at the conclusion of racing on 20 April 2023.

[7] There was no order for costs.

[8] The Adjudicative Committee advised the parties that detailed reasons would be provided as soon as possible.

Reasons

[9] Rule 638(1) provides:

“A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee consider to be:

(a) Foul
(b) Reckless
(c) Careless
(d) Incompetent

[10] Rule 642(2)(b) provides that for the purposes of the Rules, interference is defined as:

“a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.”

[11] In Calder v Racing Integrity Unit, 15 January 2020, the Appeals Tribunal refers to the difference between reckless and careless riding as follows:

“Reckless is a normal word which simply means to act in a manner needless of the danger or untoward consequences to other (or oneself). If a person has a reckless attitude, he is not concerned about what happens to others, or himself, who are affected by his actions. That is, he does not care about the possible outcome or effect the behaviour will have on others.

“Reckless” is not really dependant on “intent.” Whereas the action or manner of behaviour must be intentional and deliberate, it is the acting with a lack of concern for others needless of the consequences to other in which those deliberate actions may place them. Reckless involves a behavioural attitude.

Carelessness . . . is the failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a reasonable person to exercise in the particular situation. It also does not involve an intent to be careless or a failure to exercise reasonable care, just as to be reckless does not require an intent to harm others (though it might accompany the reckless act). But it is rather a not heeding or caring about the harmful consequences that may or are likely to follow from the actions. But of course, the manner of acting must be deliberate, not accidental.”

[12] Carelessness is an objective standard where the actions of Ms Tait are the same as would be expected of a reasonable person, in the same circumstances as Ms Tait.

[13] Ms Tait’s actions must have been deliberate not accidental, but it is not a matter of whether she intended to ride carelessly or even foresaw that in taking the action she would be riding carelessly. The issue is whether the actions of Ms Tait fell short of the degree of care expected of a reasonable rider in her position.

[14] We adopt the observations made by the Adjudicative Committee in RIB v S Weatherley (27 September 2002) in particular paragraphs 11 and 12:

11. The actual result or outcome of the particular riding is not the determining factor of whether the riding is reckless or careless (or neither). There can be reckless riding which does not involve any fall or injury (e.g., the Australian cases of Damien Oliver (14 October 2016) or J Cartwright (24 January 2017). Correspondingly, there can be careless riding which leads to a fall or even tragedy so, too, there can be a fall with or without a tragic outcome, where there had not been a breach of the Rules of Racing.

12. Those observations are made to illustrate that the tragedy that eventually happened ought not to be taken into account in deciding the charge. But a fall may be one factor relevant to penalty, which Rule 920(2) requires an Adjudicative Committee to have regard amongst such matters as it considers appropriate:

(c) any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of the breach of the Rule.

[15] At the time of this incident, Ms Tait was an Apprentice with limited racing experience, but this is not relevant to liability. The Adjudicative Committee as the factfinder is not concerned with the individual’s degree of proficiency or experience, only the characteristics of an objectively reasonable rider.

[16] There is no particular standard of proof. We must consider the circumstances and all of the evidence including the Race Films, expert evidence and submissions which may assist the Adjudicative Committee in reaching conclusion. Importantly, the Rules specify that it is for the Adjudicative Committee itself to “consider” whether the riding in this case was careless in breach of Rule 638(1)(d).

Evidence

Applicant

(a) Race films including side on (1) and back straight on (2) and head on films. The race-on-race film was not available. This footage contains several angles of the race side and front was played using the Hawkeye system operated by Mr S Irving, RIB Investigator.
(b) Written confirmation of the race result. Ms Tait’s mount MISS PEARL was the race favourites.
(c) Mr Kavish Chowdhoory (Jockey).
(d) Expert evidence:
(i)    Chief Stipendiary Steward John Oatham.
(ii)   Stipendiary Steward Mark Davidson.
(iii)  Stipendiary Steward Warwick Robinson.
(e) Transcript of interview with Ms Tait. The Adjudicative Committee did not require the audio of her interview to be played.

Respondent’s evidence:

(a)   Expert evidence: Mr David Walsh.
(b)  Expert evidence in written form from Mr Noel Harris, Mr Leith Innes, and Ms Kim Clapperton.
(c)   The Respondent’s oral evidence.

Applicant’s Evidence

[17] Race films including side-on (1) and back straight side-on (2) and head on were shown several times and where appropriate they were referred to by the various witnesses. The rear-on race film was not available.

[18] Each witness produced written evidential statements which were read.

Mr Kavish Chowdhoory

[19] Mr Chowdhoory has been a Jockey since 2018 and had over 1500 rides. Mr Chowdhoory was the Rider of ARCHERFIELD who he had not ridden previously. He was given instructions to settle handy and use his good draw (barrier number 1).

[20] Mr Chowdhoory said:

I do my form and I knew I was on the second favourite and the horse was having about its eighth start and I knew Denby was on the hot favourite MISS PEARL.

I was drawn barrier one for most of the race and she was having trouble holding her horse. I came out off the fence before the turn.
I was probably one-off the fence the whole way from there and then Denby’s horse inside me shifted. She was behind the leader.

She tried to go on the inside first. I saw what was happening, but I was there, and I yelled out but maybe she didn’t listen but then she shifted.

I was letting her know I was right next to her. I screamed out her name “Denby” and yelled “I’m here,” “don’t come out stay there”.

I did that for several seconds.

I can’t remember if there was any contact with her horse.

At that point she was in front of me I was already there, but she came out very sharp.

I’ve shifted too onto the Karen Parson’s runner.

I looked back after a few strides and saw horses fallen.

The track was perfect, and the riding conditions were good.

I also watched the films of the race and completed this statement.

[21] Mr Chowdhoory further stated that he yelled out to Ms Tait a few times to let her know that he was one off the fence behind her. He said that he was waiting for a clear run and expected her to stay on the fence behind the leader. He said there was a run for him to take and that he was entitled to it. He said that he did not recall making any contact with Ms Tait’s mount and in his view, her shift out was deliberate because in the running she was behind the leader, tried to take an inside run and then “just came out”.

[22] In cross-examination, Mr Chowdhoory was asked about some discrepancies in his statement with reference to Mr Beckett’s race colours; whether he was one or two horse-widths off the fence and the length of time he yelled at Ms Tait. Mr K Chowdhoory said that he believed he was racing one off the fence behind Ms Tait and he believed that he yelled at Ms Tait for several seconds.

Mr John Oatham

[23] Mr Oatham is the Chief Stipendiary Stewart for Thoroughbred Racing in New Zealand.

[24] In his evidential statement he stated:

I have viewed all available film angles of the incident in Race 2 (My Boy George Missing JR / Ideal Racing Maiden 1400m) at the Ashburton racing Club race meeting at Ashburton Racecourse on Thursday, 15 December 2022 which resulted in the fall of the horse RED ORCHID ridden by Class B Licenced Apprentice Jockey Megan Taylor.

My interpretation of these films is that when entering the final straight near the 400 metres Kavish Chowdhoory was attempting a run between MISS PEARL (Denby-Rose Tait) and RED ORCHID (Megan Taylor). At that point, based on the view from the back straight camera looking across, Mr Chowdhoory was around three-quarters of a length behind MISS PEARL and directly to that runner’s outside and there was sufficient room for him to improve into. MISS PEARL which had been travelling well in a railing position behind BRANCASTER BOMBER ridden by Mr Mudhoo rounding the final turn, was then directed outwards by its Rider Ms Tait approaching the 350 metres when not sufficiently clear (in my estimation a bare length at best) dictating ARCHERFIELD outwards resulting in ARCHERFIELD making contact with RED ORCHID which was forced outwards contacting a heel of AUTHORITY (J Laking) and falling.

O’DUA (T Comignaghi) was brought down by the fallen RED ORCHID with SHOW US PLENTY (S Wynne) also being brought down as a consequence and BILLYDUDE (D Montes de Oca) severely hampered dislodging its rider.

In my professional opinion, the actions of Ms Tait were clearly careless in initially directing her mount outwards when not sufficiently clear, and then continuing to ride her mount forward when on an outward movement, resulting in the interference as outlined.

[25] Mr Oatham (referring to the back straight films) stated that Ms Tait turned her mount’s head out and continued to ride forward when no more than ¾ to 1 length clear. He referred to Rule 642 (the ‘interference rule’) which he said requires a rider to be their own length and one further length clear when shifting ground.

[26] He said that clearly Mr Chowdhoory had established himself in the gap and was entitled to be there, and Ms Tait was not entitled to shift as she did. He said that rounding the turn Mr Chowdhoory’s mount’s head was turned in a little and at the same time Megan Taylor’s mount’s head was turned out. He said Mr Chowdhoory corrected his mount going into a tight gap and was established into that position. He pointed out that there was a ‘hint of a run’ for Ms Tait on the rails, but she elected to come out. Using the films, he said that the films do not establish contact between the two horses and even if there was contact there was no movement to MISS PEARL’S hindquarters.

[27] Mr Oatham maintained that Ms Tait turned her mount’s head out sharply and continued to ride forward for several strides into Mr Chowdhoory’s line. He said she shifted out two horse-widths placing him into an awkward position. He said that Mr Chowdhoory was committed to take the gap and was forced outwards onto Ms Taylor’s mount, which set up a chain reaction. He concluded that Mr Chowdhoory was not required to ease because he was committed to the run and he done so he could have clipped heels.

[28] In cross-examination, Mr Oatham was referred to the head and side on race films. Mr Oatham said that he did not agree that Mr Chowdhoory made an acute run inwards. Rather, he said that Mr Chowdhoory has corrected his mount after it layed out on the turn and at the same time Ms Taylor’s mount has lay in.

[29] In conclusion, Mr Oatham placed Ms Tait’s level of carelessness in the mid-range.

Mr Warwick Robinson

[30] Stipendiary Steward Mr Robinson was a former Rider and Riding Master.

[31] In his evidential statement Mr Robinson stated:

My interpretation of the films, after viewing angles of the race, is that when entering the final straight near the 400 meters, Kavish Chowdhoory was attempting a run between Denby Rose Tait and Megan Taylor’s mount. At that point, based on the view from the back straight camera looking across. Mr Chowdhoory was around three-quarters of a length behind Ms Tait’s mount, directly to that runner’s outside and there was sufficient room, although it was going to be a tight run for him to improve into.

Ms Tait approaching the 350 metres when not sufficiently clear, directed her mount outwards resulting in it making contact with Mr Chowdhoory’s mount.

This has caused Mr Chowdhoory’s mount to move outwards and onto Megan Taylor’s mount which in turn, forced Ms Taylor’s mount outwards contacting the heel of the mount (I now know to have been ridden by Jason Laking) causing Ms Taylor’s mount to fall.

In my opinion, the movement of Ms Tait was careless in that she had directed her mount outwards when not sufficient clear.

She has continued to ride forward when on an outward movement resulting in the interference as outlined.

[32] In his oral evidence, Mr Robinson said that Mr Chowdhoory was entitled to take the run, and there was enough room for him to do so. He said that from viewing the race films he cannot see where there was contact between Ms Tait and Mr Chowdhoory’s mounts. He said that if there was such contact, he would have expected to see the runners move.

[33] Mr Robinson stated that Mr Chowdhoory was a bare length behind, and Ms Tait was never the required distance when she shifted and is therefore careless. He said that he believed she made a rash decision to shift out, whereas she should have taken hold of her mount.

[34] In cross-examination, Mr Robinson was referred to the race films and asked whether he could exclude the fact that contact between the two horses could have been made. In response, Mr Robinson reiterated that he could not see any contact.

Mr Mark Davidson

[35] Stipendiary Steward Mr Davidson was on duty at the Ashburton race meeting on the day of the incident, as the ‘outside’ steward. He followed race 2 in a vehicle driven by the course veterinarian.

[36] In his evidential statement Mr Davidson stated:

I have viewed all three film angles of the incident in Race 2 at the Ashburton Racing Club race meeting at Ashburton on Thursday, 15 December 2022.

My interpretation of these films is that when entering the final straight jockey Denby-Rose Tait has angled her mount MISS PEARL outwards from behind BRANCASTER BOMBER dictating ARCHERFIELD outwards onto RED ORCHID which clipped a heel and fell.

In my observation, there was never sufficient room for Denby-Rose Tait to be attempting run as ARCHERFIELD had clearly established itself outside MISS PEARL and was only ¾ of a length back.

In my professional opinion after being involved in the policing of racing for over seventeen years, given the nature of the actions of Ms Tait in angling her mount outwards where there was no run available for her, a charge of careless riding is the only appropriate action.

Following the running of this race there was a protest hearing in which the placings were reversed as per the stewards’ report for the day.

[37] Mr Davidson stated that Mr Chowdhoory was entitled to make the run and at no stage did he observe firm contact between the two horses. He said that if there was contact and Ms Tait shifted outward as a result, he would have expected to see movement from either horse. And further, he stated if there was light contact it would not have caused Ms Tait to have angled outward.

[38] In cross-examination, Mr Davidson was asked if he could exclude contact to which he replied – the footage appears to be clear. Horses ‘brush’ all the time in races.

Interview – Ms Denby-Rose Tait 31 December 2022

[39] Ms Tait was interviewed by Mr Irving, a Racing Integrity Board Investigator on 31 December 2022 in the presence of her employer Mr R Beckett and Rider Mentor Mr D Walsh. Her interview was recorded and was admitted by consent.

[40] The first part of her statement referred to Ms Tait’s background and riding experience leading up to her gaining her trackwork licence, her probation period, trial rides and commencement of her Apprenticeship.

[41] In her statement, which were prefaced with questions from Mr Irving, Ms Tait stated in response to Mr Irving’s questions as follows:

. . . At the barrier Mr Chowdhoory who was on the inside asked if she was going to lead. She said that I wasn’t planning on leading, but she will jump well so I intend to be up the front and he said that’s fine just make sure you give me enough room before you cross me. I believe a replay. I checked twice before I shifted in front of him to the barrier.

… When I came out of the gates she jumped very well, and I was in the leading pack, and it was actually Mr Jason Laking who told me to take hold I think in the replay you’ll see I did that and ended up sitting just behind the leader on the rail.

… (Mr Laking) – he was just outside me because the two runners in front were starting to look to cross so Jason told me to take hold so that I ended up sitting just behind the leader.

[42] Ms Tait confirmed that one of the Mudhoo boys ended up leading and she was in the trail. In the home straight she said:

… She raced keenly but at no point did I feel like I was out of control when we came round the home bend, we’ve spoken extensively in apprentice school and David about not shifting around the corner. When we straightened up, I noticed that BRANCASTER BOMBER had started to lay ever so slightly so I was sitting quietly hoping that he would open up enough that the inside rail would become open. I think it was just after the home bend I felt MISS PEARL jolted and shift underneath me and I was trying to grab a hold because I just about fell off. After she had shifted and jolted underneath me, when I looked up there was open space in front of me, so she had shifted out and once the space in front of me was open that’s when I began to push and from that point I pushed until the race finished. After we crossed the finishing post, two jockeys congratulated me on my ride, and I hadn’t realised there had been a fall until I turned around and saw a loose horse coming towards us.

… when MISS PEARL shifted underneath me, I heard Kavish Chowdhoory shout my name, probably two or three times – just my name and that was all I heard.

… you know I pulled my left hand because I knew that he was behind me so when he yelled my name I didn’t really know where he was in relation to where my horse was so I tried to straighten up as best I could.

… Like I said I was on the rail and Mr Mudhoo’s horse had started to shift out, so I was holding the rail hoping that I’d get a run straight up the rail. Because we’d walked the track, I knew the inside of the track was good. I was sitting quietly, and MISS PEARL shifted in, it felt like her back end swung out towards the raid and she threw her head. I don’t know exactly how to explain it, but she felt like she’d lost her footing and been bumped, I guess you could say. Prior to that she had been travelling well underneath me and hadn’t caused me any issues and then suddenly MISS PEARL felt very disorientated and like she’d been bumped or pushed by another horse.

… Yes, like she’d been pushed by something by another horse.

… When her hind quarters were hit, her head came up towards me and that’s when I felt from her hind being twisted, that’s when like you said her hinds went towards the barrier and her head came out into the open, if that’s the right wording.

… The bump came prior to him shouting my name.

… yes, I tried to get my balance because I thought I was going to fall off and then once I had my balance that’s when I heard Kavish shout my name, so I straightened. I thought I was already heading straight but I heard the shouting coming slightly from my right side so I instinctively pulled my left thinking it may have been getting tight somewhere towards my right-hand side, but I didn’t know where they were exactly in relation to me.

Respondent

Mr Noel Harris

His statement was admitted by consent.

I have been asked to provide a letter regarding my opinion of the race day footage which involved the incident in question.

My credentials are as follows:
• 45 years as a professional Jockey riding in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia.
• 2400 winners in total
• 8 years employed as Northern Apprentice Jockey Mentor for NZTR.

Over the years, I have ridden and evaluated many races both pre and post race and understand both the pressures of riding, riding instructions and the risk involved in making instant decisions which can be life altering for all involved.

My evaluation of the race footage is as follows:

Denby’s mount has stepped out in the straight taking the line of Kavish Chowdhoory. Kavish has continued to ride his mount aggressively to “hold his line.” Although Kavish was entitled to be where he was in the running, with experience you learn to evaluate the risk involved in making these decisions and ease the pressure.

Had Kavish eased his mount and not continued to push forward, the outcome would have been different.

Unfortunately, these decisions above are made in milliseconds and nothing outweighs experience and hindsight.

During my riding careers I have been in numerous similar situations with both apprentices and senior jockeys without the same unfortunate outcome.

I don’t believe that Denby steered her mount outwards, more tat the horse stepped up. With Denby being a 4kg claiming apprentice and only having had a handful of rides and Kavish only having just completed his apprenticeship, this is more of a hugely devastating accident and the pitfalls of being in such a high-risk sport.

As a past jockey, this is every jockey’s worst nightmare.

I am happy to give a verbal statement upon request and answer any questions relating to the incident.

Mr Leith Innes

His statement was admitted by consent.

I am a recently retired professional jockey who rode over 1500 winners in a career spanning 27 years. I rode with success in NZ, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong.

I have been asked to comment on the incident that resulted in the tragic death of Megan Taylor. I would make the following points:

1. Watching the race live (I now watch a lot of races for my role as a Trackside comments person) I was taken by how the ride of Denby-Rose Tait was proving difficult to control throughout the race and as an inexperienced rider she was having a tough ride.

2. In my opinion the racing incident that led to the fall was caused by a combination of factors. These factors involved movement from the horse ridden by Denby-Rose Tait, but a significant contributing factor was the decisions made by other riders.

3. There is interference of this nature on most race days, often much worse, but thankfully that interference doesn’t result in the tragic outcome this one did.

My comments are general in nature but provide my view as to reasons for this most tragic of outcomes.

Ms Kim Clapperton

Her statement was admitted by consent.

I have been the Riding Master/Mentor in the Central Districts for the last 3 years. I was the leading Apprentice Jockey in NZ in the 1988/89 season. I rode in HK, France and Japan on stints and rode for 6 years on the Singapore/Malaysia circuit winning the premiership there.

My job as Riding Master requires me to review and analyse videos constantly and on raceday to support the Apprentice Jockeys in the judicial room.

I believe that Denby-Rose has come out from behind the horse in front of her to obtain a run, and in doing so has come out in front of Kavish Chowdhoory. I believe that when Denby-Rose has come out that she came out an extra horse width than she had intended, just complete lack of experience having only had a few rides. It was gradual movement and I believe that Kavish had plenty of time to see exactly where Denby was going. I believe that Denby was always a length in front of Kavish so that Kavish had to steer his mount outwards quite abruptly from behind her and made contact with Megan Taylor’s mount. At that point Kavish Chowdhoory “should” have taken a hold, evaluating the situation, that there was no room for him, but chose to kick up very aggressively to try and hold his spot. As a senior rider I would have expected him to ease the pressure and take a hold instead of adding more pressure to the situation. I feel he chose to look after himself instead of his fellow riders. Racing is high pressure situations and split-second decisions and unfortunately in this situation it had very dire consequences which no one ever expects to happen. It is a tragic accident and in my years of experience you learn to evaluate situations in a race very quickly.

Mr David Walsh

[43] Mr Walsh is employed as an Apprentice Jockey Mentor for the South Island and a Training Advisor.

[44] Mr Walsh has lifetime experience in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry beginning as a stable hand at 13 years. He became a very successful Jockey winning jockey memberships in New Zealand. He trained 98 winners including a Group 1 race. He employed several apprentice jockeys including leading apprentices. He has remained as Ms Tait’s mentor.

[45] Mr Walsh was present at the Ashburton Racing Club race meeting at Ashburton Racecourse on Thursday, 15 December 2022 and saw Race 2 as Ms Tait’s mentor. In his opinion, Ms Tait’s riding was not careless, and he does not agree with the expert evidence for the Applicant.

[46] In Mr Walsh’s opinion, Mr Kavish Chowdhoory caused the interference not Ms Tait who in his view had been “thrown under the bus.”

[47] Having viewed the race films Mr Walsh took the view it was Mr Chowdhoory who made the deliberate inward movement when there was no gap for him. He was partially behind Ms Tait’s mount and it was impossible for him not to make contact with MISS PEARL who had blinkers on and turns its head out without noting its line. Any contact would have had an effect on her. Ms Tait tried to balance her horse but the pressure on its hind quarters forced it out.

[48] Mr Walsh said that “Mr Chowdhoory put himself there. Referring to the race films he contended that there was a bump “just for a stride”. He said that it was only marginal and MISS PEARL’S head turns. He said that it was his belief that Mr Chowdhorry’s horse has made contact with MISS PEARL’S hindquarters, and this has caused her to turn her horse out. He added that she turned out because she was trying to regain her balance.

[49] Mr Walsh would not have done that if he had been riding and believes if Mr Chowdhoory had not put his horse there this accident would not have happened. He said that “I wouldn’t have put myself there – I would have eased and waited for a gap”. He reiterated at that if Mr Chowdhorry had backed off none of this would have happened. He likened the bump by Mr Chowdhorry to a what is known as a PIT manoeuvre – the Adjudicative Committee understands this to be a ‘controlled tactic’ used by some Police Forces in the world to bump the rear of a car under pursuit so that it turns and is forced to stop. Referencing the films Mr Walsh said that on the bend into the home straight Mr Chowdhorry was racing in the one – one position following the horse outside the leader. He then shifted inwards, when in fact he had an option to shift out. He also pointed out that Ms Taylor’s mount was stopping quickly and lost about 1 length within 30 or 40 metres and at the same time did lay in of Mr Chowdhorry.

[50] In concluding his evidence, Mr Walsh said that the contact between the two horses could have been on / off for a few strides. He said that MISS PEARL clearly lost its balance Ms Tait did not make a deliberate move outwards, the bump was slight, but it was on the horses’ hindquarters. He added Ms Tait’s horse was in blinkers which can make a horse over-react. It was also quite a small horse so any contact would have an effect on it. It was hit in the rear. In cross-examination Mr Walsh restated his opinion.

Submissions for the Applicant

[51] Counsel for the Applicant submits that there are five key points in the case for the Applicant:

a) Kavish Chowdhoory’s evidence about shouting is consistent with Ms Tait making her movement out.

b) Ms Tait’s mount’s head movement occurred prior to any contact which could take place.

c) None of the witnesses for the Applicant could see the movement.

d) The written statements of Mr Leith Innes, Mr Noel Harris and Ms Kim Clapperton are all consistent with Mr Chowdhoory’s evidence. They hold Mr Chowdhoory responsible not Ms Tait despite the fact that Mr Chowdhoory was entitled to make that run and made no reference to Mr Chowdhoory making any form of contact with Ms Tait’s mount.

e) Ms Tait was riding the hot favourite and a run opened up for her which is more consistent with a deliberate action on her part rather than an accidental matter.

Submissions for the Respondent

[52] Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Ms Tait did not make a deliberate movement.

[53] It was Mr Chowdhoory who made an acute move across and Ms Tait was very clear in her evidence that there was no contact made with the rear of her horse and her horse’s reaction was to move outwards.

[54] It was accidental not a conscious decision by Ms Tait. Mr Chowdhoory’s evidence was not truthful.

Reasons for Decision

[55] The Rules specify that it is for the Adjudicative Committee itself to consider whether the riding in this case was careless in breach of Rule 638(1)(d).

[56] The summary of Stipendiary Stewards’ evidence was that Ms Tait rode her mount MISS PEARL in a careless manner. In particular, it was alleged that Ms Tait rode in a careless manner nearing the 350-metre mark by angling her mount outwards to obtain a clear run, when not sufficiently clear and in doing so impeding ARCHERFIELD, ridden by Mr Chowdhoory, who was improving to her outside flank.

[57] For Ms Tait, her Counsel relied upon the opinion evidence of Mr Walsh, the written statements of Mr Harris, Mr Innes and Ms Clapperton and Ms Tait’s oral evidence including her statement to the RIB. Counsel submitted Ms Tait’s riding was not careless and Ms Tait did not make a deliberate movement. Mr Chowdhoory was not a credible witness. He made an acute move across, and Ms Tait was very clear that he made contact with the rear of her mount MISS PEARL whose reaction was to move outwards accidentally.

[58] The Adjudicative Committee considered all of the evidence, both oral and in writing together with the race films and Counsel’s submissions.

[60] Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the evidence of Mr Chowdhoory was not credible.

[61] The Adjudicative Committee carefully considered this submission but found Mr Chowdhoory to be a credible and honest witness.

[62] The three written statements from Mr Harris, Mr Innes and Ms Clapperton provided by Counsel for the Respondent to some extent attempt to shift the responsibility onto Mr Chowdhoory, as an inexperienced jockey consistent with the Respondent’s case. There was no reference in their statements to any contact initiated by Mr Chowdhoory with Ms Tait’s mount. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that Mr Chowdhoory was entitled to make the run that he did. Mr Chowdhoory’s evidence that he shouted at Ms Tait is consistent with her making a deliberate movement out into his running line.

[63] Ms Tait’s mount’s head movement occurred before any contact with Mr Chowdhoory’s mount could have taken place. Although Mr Walsh had a different opinion, the Adjudicative Committee preferred the evidence of Mr Davidson that there was no chance of contact before then. Furthermore, none of the Stipendiary Stewards could see any movement of MISS PEARL’s hindquarters.

[64] The Adjudicative Committee did not accept Ms Tait’s evidence that she had not made a deliberate movement and that it was Mr Chowdhoory who made contact with her mount’s rear who then reacted by accidentally moving outwards.

[65] With regard to the differing opinions and the race films, the Adjudicative Committee preferred the evidence of Mr Chowdhoory and the three Stipendiary Stewards. The Adjudicative Committee found that Ms Tait when nearing the 350-metre mark deliberately angled her mount outwards to obtain a clear run, in doing so impeded ARCHERFIELD.

[66] We agree with Mr Oatham’s assessment that the level of carelessness was in the mid-range.

[67] The Adjudicative Committee emphasises that Ms Tait did not intend there to be a fall or other consequences from her actions. As Ms Clapperton stated, “racing is high pressured situations and split second decisions.”

Penalty

[68] The updated Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide dated February 2023 recommends a starting point of 4 weeks suspension for careless riding causing a fall. This in in conformity of the previous Penalty Guide which was in force at the time of this incident.

[69] Rule 920(2)(b) provides that in imposing a penalty the Adjudicative Committee may have regard to such matters as it considers appropriate, including any consequential effect upon any person or horse as a result of a breach of the Rule.

[70] The consequential effect of Ms Tait angling her mount outwards are that ARCHERFIELD on her outside flank was impeded, and dictated outwards onto RED ORCHID (M Taylor) which was also forced outwards and clipped the heels of the AUTHORITY (J Laking) who was in front of her causing RED ORCHID to fall.

[71] The trailing horses O’DUA (T Comignaghi) and SHOW US PLENTY (S Wynne) were brought down. BILLY DUDE (D Montes de Orca) suffered resultant interference dislodging its rider.

[72] Tragically, Apprentice rider Megan Taylor died as a result of the fall.

[73] Samantha Wynne suffered a broken collar bone, two fractured ribs and a fractured pelvis, Comignaghi a serious ankle injury and Diego Mores de Oca a minor shoulder injury.

[74] The horse SHOW US PLENTY was immediately euthanized as a result of injuries suffered in the fall.

[75] Ms Tait in no way intended to bring about these consequences, but where such consequences follow from riding which falls below the acceptable standard such as careless riding an uplift reflects those consequences.

[76] Both Counsel submitted that uplift of 2 weeks was appropriate from the 4-week starting point. The Adjudicative Committee imposed an uplift of 3 weeks to reflect the aggravating features of the breach including the consequences and the (mid-range) level of carelessness.

[77] There are no other aggravating features.

[78] With regard to Ms Tait there are the mitigating factors of her youth, inexperience and the fact she had no other breaches of the Rules in her very short riding career and we take into account the emotional distress she has suffered and continues to suffer.

[79] For these reasons, the Adjudicative Committee reduces the 7 week suspension by one week.

[80] The deferment of the commencement of the term of suspension is required by the Rules of Racing as Ms Tait has confirmed riding engagements at the race Riccarton meeting on 9 March 2023.

[81] Ms Tait’s suspension of 6 weeks commences on Friday, 10 March 2023 and concludes after racing on 20 April 2023.

[82] In conclusion, prior to the Penalty Hearing, Mr Kevin Taylor, father of Megan Taylor read his statement about the tragic loss of his daughter and the effect on him and his family.

Costs

[83] There was no order for costs.