NZ Metro TC 18 April 2024 – R5 – Matthew Williamson

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 5, K B Electrics Handicap Trot, Open Driver, Matthew Williamson, as the Driver of SHEZA GIFT in the race, denied a charge that he drove carelessly in that he “shifted outwards near the 150 metres checking THE BLOSS (Sarah O’Reilly) which broke”.

Rule 869 provides:

(3)  No driver in any race shall drive:- 

       (b) carelessly

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, showed a video replay of the incident with approximately 150 metres to run. He had Stipendiary Steward, Matt Sole, point out the two runners. SHEZA GIFT, driven by the Respondent, was racing towards the rear of runners and improving to the inside of THE BLOSS, driven by Miss O’Reilly, which was beginning to weaken.

Mr Renault then showed that, at about the 150 metres, the Respondent shifted wider on the track and made contact with the near front leg of Miss O’Reilly’s runner, resulting in that horse breaking. Miss O’Reilly was attempting to shift wider on the track. Miss O’Reilly had another runner to her outside, MISSALYSSA (Sam Thornley), which was ahead of Miss O’Reilly’s runner. Mr Renault submitted that the Respondent had not taken sufficient care in shifting outwards.

Miss O’Reilly said (by telephone) that her horse was hanging slightly and was “flat”. The movement from Mr Williamson on her inside was gradual, she said. She confirmed that MISSALYSSA was racing to her outside. She was not able to shift wider to accommodate the Respondent’s manoeuvre, she said, because of that runner on her outside.

The Respondent asked for the front straight and head-on videos to be shown. He agreed that he had started to shift his horse out, but had straightened to make the move gradual. Miss O’Reilly’s runner was laying in, he alleged. There was plenty of room for her to move wider to accommodate his movement, he said. His horse’s head was straight and pressure was slight.

In summation, Mr Renault said that the Respondent was not entitled to move out, because Miss O’Reilly had MISSALYSSA to her outside. She could be seen attempting to shift wide when the Respondent did come out. The Driver shifting ground must do so in a manner which does not cause interference. The Respondent had caused interference, he said.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Shifting Ground Regulation provides:

Where a driver does not have a clear passage during a race the driver shall be permitted to shift ground outwards and ease another runner up the track provided the horse to be shifted outwards is in a position to be moved out without causing interference to that or any other horse and that the movement complies with the requirements of [the “push out” Rule].

For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall apply:

The onus shall be on the driver shifting ground to ensure that the move is made with safety and does not cause interference by conducting it in a gradual and acceptable manner thereby enabling the driver of the runner being moved to be able to take the necessary action to accommodate the manoeuvre.

Where interference occurs . . . the provisions of Rules 869(3) and (4) shall apply.

The Adjudicative Committee heard from Miss O’Reilly that she was not able to shift wider to accommodate the Respondent’s movement, because of MISSALYSSA racing to her outside. That appeared to be the case from viewing the video replays, and the Adjudicative Committee does not accept the Respondent’s evidence that there was room. It is significant that the Respondent, given the opportunity to question Miss O’Reilly on the evidence she had given to the hearing, did not wish to question her.

The Respondent had shifted his runner several cart-widths wider, and with some momentum. He had an obligation to ensure that he was sufficiently clear of Miss O’Reilly’s runner before crossing it. In terms of the Regulation, the onus was on the Respondent, as the Driver shifting ground, to ensure he could do so with safety and without causing interference.

The Respondent has caused interference and, therefore, has driven carelessly.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Renault said that the Respondent has had 230 drives this season and has a clear record under the Careless Driving Rule.

He submitted that the breach was mid-range for which the Penalty Guide suggests a starting point for penalty of a $500 fine or a 2-days suspension.

The Respondent told the Adjudicative Committee that he would prefer a fine over a suspension.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Adjudicative Committee found that the Respondent’s carelessness was in the mid-range. The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (February 2023) provides for a starting point for penalty for a mid-range breach of a $500 fine or a 2-days suspension.

The Respondent has expressed preference for a fine rather than a suspension. A fine is an appropriate penalty for this breach.

The Respondent is entitled to a discount from that starting point for his good record, and the Adjudicative Committee fixes that discount at $100.

CONCLUSION:

The Respondent, Open Driver, Matthew Williamson, is fined $400.