Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 30 May 2024 – Bruce Wallace

Background 

Mr Wallace has admitted a breach of r 847(3) in that on 10 May 2024, he drove the horse JAY BEE HILL in Race 1 at the Winton Harness Racing Club’s Workouts Meeting at Winton, having failed to fasten the chin strap of his safety helmet, which came adrift at the 600 metres.

Both parties have accepted that it is appropriate that the matter be heard on the papers.

Rule 847(3) provides: “A driver shall while seated in the sulky at a race meeting wear his safety helmet with the chin strap securely.”

The video footage evidences that the chin strap of the Respondent’s safety helmet was undone, and it came adrift at the 600 metres. It then made contact with a leg of the trailing runner.

Mr Munro has stated that Mr Wallace admitted his error when questioned.

Mr Wallace has signed the Information to the effect that he admits the charge.

Decision

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

The Informant’s Penalty Submissions

Mr Munro described Mr Wallace as Graduation Driver who has a Licence to Train. Mr Wallace has an excellent record under this Rule.

Mr Munro stated that a matter of this nature would normally be dealt with by way of a Minor Infringement, with the penalty being $200. He submitted a penalty at this level was appropriate.

The Respondent’s Penalty Submissions

Mr Wallace made no written submission, but has stated orally that he accepts that a penalty at the Minor Infringement level is appropriate in this instance.

Penalty 

The penalty by way of Minor Infringement is $200. The incident is at a Workout, where there were only three other runners. Nevertheless, the health and safety concerns are obvious. Near the 600 metre mark, the Respondent’s helmet has come off and has hit a leg of the trailing runner. It is evident that the strap was never done up securely.

Having regard to the fact that the flying helmet came into contact with another runner, the gravity of the breach is such that a small $50 uplift from the $200 starting point is appropriate. This is discounted by a similar figure to reflect the mitigating factors that Mr Wallace has no previous breaches of this Rule and has admitted the breach at the first opportunity.

Mr Wallace is fined the sum of $200.

As the matter has been dealt with on the papers, there is no order for costs.