NZ Metro TC 28 November 2025 – R7 (heard 19 December 2025 at Alexandra Park – Reserved Decision) – Emily Johnson

Introduction

[1] Following Race 7, the McMillan Equine Feeds NZJD Champs (HEAT 4), at the NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting on 28 November 2025, Junior Driver Ms E Johnson (the “Respondent”) was charged with careless driving.

[2] The hearing was opened and adjourned and the charge heard prior to Race 1 at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park on 19 December 2025.

[3] Ms Johnson was supported at the hearing by Lay Advocate Mr Rob Lawson. She confirmed that the charge was denied.

The Charge

[4] Information No. A21944 was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Renault (the Applicant”) in relation to Race 7.

The particulars of the charge are:

That on 28 November 2025, Ms Johnson (HE AINT FAKIN) drove carelessly by continuing to drive in the race after her helmet was dislodged. 

The Rule

[5] Rule 869(3)(b) provides that:  (3) No driver in any race shall drive: (b) Carelessly

Evidence

[6] Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Mr Lawson and Mr Renault provided detailed written submissions.  It was agreed that these could be ‘taken as read’.  There was also common ground concerning the circumstances that led to Ms Johnson’s helmet being dislodged.  Using the available race films, Stipendiary Steward Mr Renault showed that during the running of the race, BILLY KIMBER, driven by M Holbrough, struck the helmet of the Respondent, Junior Driver Ms E Johnson (HE AINT FAKIN) while rounding the first bend and again when approaching the 1300-metre mark, due to BILLY KIMBER trailing too closely.

[7] He pointed out that these incidents caused Ms Johnson’s helmet to be dislodged and it fell onto the track. Mr Renault said Ms Johnson continued driving her horse to the finish and it placed third.

[8] Mr Renault confirmed that a post-race investigation concluded that Ms Johnson’s helmet was properly secured, and no blame was attributed to her for the helmet coming adrift.

[9] Mr Renault further stated that the helmet was recovered and removed from the track by the crash crew and no longer presented as a safety concern for the horses or Drivers on the final lap of the track. Mr Renault confirmed that Stewards interviewed Ms Johnson concerning her decision to continue driving after her helmet was dislodged. By agreement, that interview was not replayed as it was accepted by Ms Johnson and Mr Lawson that the line of questioning was in relation to a different charge and therefore of no probative value.  Mr Renault also confirmed that no consideration was given to either instigating a protest or seeking a Ruling.  He confirmed that the Rules do not permit a protest arising from a breach of R869(3)(b).

[10] Ms Johnson said in evidence that when her helmet came off, she wasn’t sure what she was supposed to do.  She said she was under a lot of pressure, as the race was part of the Junior Driver Championships and she was driving the hot favourite and trying to do her best.  She added that she was unaware of any Rule requiring that she pull out of the race, once her helmet came adrift.

[11] Under cross examination from Mr Renault, she was asked whether she felt protected after her helmet came off.  She responded “no”.  She was also asked whether she jeopardised her own safety, she replied, “No, I was parked.  I didn’t feel unsafe and continued to drive”.

Closing statements

The Applicant – Mr Renault

[12] Mr Renault submitted that the focus of the Applicant’s case, is about the Driver’s conduct after her helmet came off.  He said safety rules are in place to deal with unsafe conduct.  He said the primary risk was the way the Respondent acted after she lost her helmet – from that point on, she exposed herself to an ongoing risk.  He said that careless driving is about the risk at the time.  He then referred to issues of public trust and reputation in Harness Racing.  He emphasised that a reasonable Driver would have withdrawn from the race.

[13] Mr Renault referred to the elements of the Careless Driving definition, as set out in the Penalty Guide. He said that Ms Johnson compromised her own safety – he highlighted the fact that no-one knows when a safety issue may arise on the track and mentioned the recent issue/accident at Alexandra Park, concerning the unforeseen failure of Driver Mr Nathan Williamson’s sulky seat.  He said that in relation to consequences, Ms Johnson should have known that not wearing a helmet was a requirement.  He concluded the charge was therefore proven.

The Respondent – Mr Lawson

[14] Mr Lawson submitted that at the time, there was no Rule in place specifically requiring Ms Johnson to withdraw from the race.  He said that this was recently endorsed by HRNZ – he referred to the Official Notice dated 12 December 2025, concerning the revised safety regulations.  He said that had the amended regulation been in place, Ms Johnson would have pulled out of the race.

[15] Mr Lawson referred to the case relating to the RIB v B Wallace (30/05/24). Mr Wallace lost his helmet during a trial and continued to finish the race.  He said that he was charged with a breach of R847(3) and fined $200.  He was not charged with careless driving.  He then referred to general racing incidents, where from time to time, boring poles come loose and bandages come adrift.  He said that these equally can result in safety issues and Drivers are not charged with careless driving when such events occur.

[16] Mr Lawson said had Ms Johnson been charged under R847(3) – i.e. failed to ensure her helmet/chin strap was secured, she would have admitted the breach. He concluded that the incident has generated considerable publicity and interest among Drivers.  He surveyed 20 leading Drivers (he described as prudent) and they all agreed that, in the absence of a specific Rule, if faced with similar circumstances, they would have continued to drive to the finish of a race.

Written Submissions Prior to the Hearing

[17] Two days before the hearing, Mr Lawson provided written submissions. Mr Renault responded.

Submissions for the Respondent  

The submissions filed by Mr Lawson are summarised as follows:

[18] Mr Lawson submitted that the factual situation was not in dispute. He said the Respondent’s conduct, assessed against the Rules, standards, and guidance in force at the time, did not amount to careless driving under Rule 869(3)(b) and he said the charge should be dismissed.

[19] He said that the Rules that were in force at the time of the race, required a Driver to wear an approved safety helmet; and ensure that the chin strap was securely fastened while driving. He said the Stewards’ findings confirm that the Respondent fully followed these requirements. And there was no express Rule, directive, or policy in force at the time, requiring a Driver to withdraw from a race, if a helmet became dislodged during the running.

[20] Mr Lawson referred to the scope of the Careless Driving Rule 869(3)(b). He submitted that the Rule is directed at the way a horse is driven, and provided examples of what he believed to be the scope of the Rule; namely:

• unsafe manoeuvring;
• poor judgment in race positioning;
• loss of control; or
• conduct creating risk to other Drivers or horses.

[21] Mr Lawson submitted that Stewards have not alleged Ms Johnson drove erratically; lost control of her horse; caused interference; or placed other participants at risk. He said the sole basis of the charge, is that she continued to compete after her helmet became dislodged. On that basis, he submitted that careless driving is not proved.

[22] Further, Mr Lawson submitted that the Stewards’ own findings exclude carelessness, because they have expressly found that Ms Johnson’s helmet was securely fastened; the dislodgement occurred due to external contact from another runner; and no blame was attached to Ms Johnson for the incident. Those findings, he submitted, are fundamentally inconsistent with an allegation of careless driving.

[23] Mr Lawson referred to the ‘absence of a known obligation to withdraw’. He argued that, at the time of the race, there was no specific Rule requiring a Driver to withdraw if their helmet came loose; HRNZ only updated the safety regulations after the event.  He said the subsequent Official Notice mandating withdrawal in future cases, strongly supports the conclusion that the position previously lacked clarity and needed formal guidance.

[24] Mr Lawson addressed Ms Johnson’s Junior Driver status, in terms of her lack of experience and decision making. He pointed to the fact that the incident occurred in real time, requiring an immediate judgment call under the circumstances. Again, he referred to no Rule required withdrawal; no Steward’s instruction was issued during the race; and she stayed in control of her horse and caused no interference.

[25] Mr Lawson said that Ms Johnson fully accepts that safety is paramount. He suggested that safety is best promoted through:

• clear Rules.
• advance notice; and
• consistent enforcement.
• Using a broad careless driving provision to address a situation not previously regulated, risks uncertainty and unfairness, particularly for Junior Drivers.

[26] In conclusion, Mr Lawson submitted the charge should be dismissed because:

• Ms Johnson complied with all applicable safety requirements.
• The Stewards’ own findings establish that: the helmet dislodgement was accidental; it was externally caused; and no blame attached to the Respondent.
• There was no obligation at the time requiring withdrawal.
• Ms Johnson’s conduct did not constitute careless driving.

Submissions for the Applicant

The submissions filed by Mr Renault are summarised as follows:

[27] Mr Renault submitted that Stewards acknowledge the written submissions lodged on behalf of Ms Johnson and do not dispute the findings stated in the Stewards Report, as to how the helmet became dislodged. He said the charge is not about how the helmet became dislodged (no fault attributed to Johnson). Rather, it is about her decision to continue racing without a helmet, which Stewards argue exposed her to a foreseeable and unacceptable safety risk.

[28] He said that assessed objectively, the Respondent’s continued participation without a helmet, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable Driver and is properly captured by Rule 869(3)(b).

[29] Mr Renault referred to the scope of the Careless Driving Rule 869(3)(b) and submitted that whereas the Respondent submits that careless driving is confined to matters of race positioning, interference, or control of the horse, Stewards do not accept that the Rule is so narrowly framed.  He said Rule 869(3)(b) is concerned with driving that is careless, which necessarily includes decisions made during the running of a race that materially affect safety. A Driver’s obligation is not limited to how a horse is steered or positioned. It also extends to decisions that expose the Driver to obvious and heightened danger, while controlling a fast-moving horse in close proximity to other runners.

[30] Mr Renault submitted the absence of interference or erratic driving, does not preclude a finding of careless driving, where a Driver knowingly continues in circumstances that compromise their own safety. In support of this, he referred to the careless driving definition in the Racing Integrity Board Penalty Guide, which was endorsed by the New Zealand Trainer’s and Driver’s Association.

[31] He stated the Stewards’ concern arises, after the helmet fell to the track. From the 1300m, the Respondent was driving at race speed, competing against a number of other horses without any head protection, despite being fully aware that her helmet was no longer attached. The Respondent chose to continue racing, and that decision can be properly assessed under Rule 869(3)(b), regardless of how the helmet was initially dislodged.

[32] Mr Renault said that Stewards emphasise that the primary risk created by the Respondent, was to herself. He pointed out that Harness Racing is high risk and contact or falls are always possible.  He also referred to the fact that a helmet is a fundamental and non-negotiable safety requirement, because of the severe consequences that may follow, even minor incidents. He therefore argued that once the helmet was dislodged, the Respondent was exposed to a significantly increased risk of serious head injury, in the event of any contact or fall. And it is the Stewards’ submission, that by continuing to drive in those circumstances, was objectively unsafe and demonstrated a lack of reasonable care for her own safety.

[33] Mr Renault submitted the Respondent contends that there was no explicit requirement at the time of the race, mandating that she withdraws.

[34] He said Stewards do not accept this argument. They assert that the lack of a specific Rule requiring a Driver to withdraw, does not absolve a Driver from the responsibility to avoid clear and substantial safety risks. In their view, the act of continuing to participate in the race without wearing a helmet, exposed the Respondent to a significant and foreseeable danger. The Stewards argue that a reasonable Driver, exercising appropriate judgment, would have placed personal safety above continued participation. Consequently, Rule 869(3)(b) is applicable to conduct that does not meet this expected standard of care, irrespective of whether a direct instruction or Rule is in place.

[35] Mr Renault referred to Rule 847(3) and the pre-existing Safety Regulations relating to the requirement for a Driver, while seated in the sulky at a race meeting, wear a safety helmet with the chin strap securely fastened. He said that while the subsequent (amended) Safety Regulations made explicit, the expectation that Drivers should withdraw if their helmet is dislodged, this does not remove the Respondent’s responsibility. She would have been well aware that Rule 847(3) requires a Driver to wear a helmet while seated in the sulky, with the chin strap fastened. By continuing to race without her helmet, she ignored an obvious and serious safety requirement, exposing herself to significant risk.

[36] He contended that this is precisely the type of conduct that Rule 869(3)(b) is intended to address and that the amended (as of 12 December 2025) Regulations did not create a new obligation; rather, it clarifies and formalises a safety expectation that was already inherent and self-evident.

[37] Mr Renault further submitted, Drivers are expected to exercise judgment consistent with basic safety principles. The loss of a helmet during a race, is an obvious and exceptional circumstance, that demands a safety-first response.

[38] Mr Renault submitted that Stewards acknowledge Ms Johnson is a Junior Driver. But pointed out, that she is an experienced Junior Driver (400+ drives), and she should have appreciated the risks and taken steps to withdraw safely. And her junior status does not displace the obligation to take reasonable care for personal safety.

[39] Mr Renault rejected the Respondent’s submission, that the Stewards’ own findings excluded carelessness. He argued that by continuing to race without her helmet, was critical to her own safety. He said Races are unpredictable – horses can choke down, shy, break gait, or equipment can fail. Any of these events can happen at any time. A recent example occurred just last week, when a sulky failed, causing the Driver to fall to the track and be struck by trailing runners.

[40] Careless driving he submitted, arises not from the cause of the incident, but from the Respondent’s lack of action subsequent to the helmet being dislodged.

[41] Mr Renault referred to a case in New South Wales, Australia, involving a Driver F Schmetzer (Wagga, 4 June 2024, Race 5) who continued racing, after her helmet was dislodged. She pleaded guilty to two charges (1) Rule 159A(1) for failing to have her helmet properly fastened – fined $500, and (2) Rule 168(1)(e) for continuing to race without a helmet when there was a clear opportunity to retire for safety reasons – 6 weeks suspension.

[42] On this point, Mr Renault submitted that when considering the circumstances of the Respondent’s case, Stewards deemed that careless driving was the appropriate charge. He further submitted, the Racing Integrity Board’s fundamental objectives of fair racing, safe racing and public confidence, are central to all decisions. And Stewards cannot accept a Driver continuing in a race in a way that clearly compromises their own safety, as this goes against those core purposes.

[43] In conclusion Mr Renault submitted:

• That the Respondent knowingly continued to compete without a helmet.
• That this created an obvious and foreseeable risk of serious harm to herself; and
• That a reasonable Driver exercising due care would have withdrawn at the first safe and practical opportunity.
• That failure amounts to careless driving within the meaning of Rule 869(3)(b); Stewards therefore maintain the charge and submit that it is proved.

Decision and Reasons

Background

[44] The charge of careless driving arose during the running of the race, when BILLY KIMBER, driven by M Holbrough, struck the helmet of the Respondent, Junior Driver Ms E Johnson (HE AINT FAKIN) on several occasions while rounding the first bend and again when approaching the 1300-metre mark, due to BILLY KIMBER trailing too closely. These incidents caused Ms Johnson’s helmet to be dislodged, and it fell onto the track. Despite losing her helmet, Ms Johnson chose to continue driving her horse and finished the race in third place.

[45] After the race, an investigation was conducted to determine whether Ms Johnson’s helmet had been securely fastened prior to the incident. The findings confirmed that her helmet was properly secured, and no blame was attributed to Ms Johnson for the helmet coming adrift. Had it been determined that Ms Johnson was at fault, she could have potentially been liable under Rule R847(3), which addresses situations where a chin strap or helmet is not adequately secured. However, the Rule is silent regarding any requirement for a Driver to retire from a race, if their helmet becomes dislodged.

[46] At the time of the incident, there was no existing Rule, policy, or directive that required Ms Johnson—or any other Driver—to withdraw from a race after losing a helmet. Therefore, in the absence of formal guidance, it would not have been reasonable to expect all Drivers to know that they were obligated to retire from the event under such circumstances. This is not a desirable situation for both Stewards and Drivers. Thus, the reason why cases such as this, need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[47] In response to this incident, the Racing Integrity Board (RIB), together with HRNZ, initiated a review of the relevant Rules and Regulations. This review led to an amendment to the Safety Gear Regulations and the publication of an Official Notice on December 12, 2025, by Mr Brad Steele, Chief Executive of HRNZ.

[48] The review concluded that while Regulations at the time, required Drivers to wear and secure safety helmets, they did not specifically address the actions a Driver should take if a helmet became detached during a race. Considering the speed and intensity of Harness Racing, it was determined that continuing to race without proper helmet protection, posed an unacceptable safety risk. As a result, the amendment to the Safety Gear Regulation was introduced, requiring Drivers to withdraw from the race at the first safe and practical opportunity, if their helmet becomes detached.

[49] The amendment to the Safety Gear Regulation was implemented without delay, underscoring the urgency with which the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) and policy makers addressed the identified gap in the existing Rules. This action reflects the recognition that the previous Regulations did not provide clear guidance for Drivers, in the event their helmet became dislodged during a race.

[50] Although this regulatory change is not retrospective and therefore does not apply to incidents that took place before the amendment on 12 December 2025, its introduction serves as compelling evidence that RIB and policy makers acknowledged the lack of explicit requirements in the prior Rules/Regulations. This recognition helps explain why Drivers, such as Ms Johnson, might have felt uncertain about their obligations if their helmet came adrift while competing.

[51] By clarifying the expectations for Driver conduct, the amended Regulation removes any ambiguity about what is required in such circumstances. From the date of its enactment forward, Drivers are now expressly required to withdraw from a race at the first safe and practical opportunity, if their helmet is not securely fastened or becomes detached during the event. This explicit mandate ensures that all Drivers understand their responsibilities, thereby improving safety and consistency within Harness Racing.

Amendment of the charge

[52] In lieu of Mr Lawson submitting in his closing statement that Ms Johnson would have pleaded guilty had she been charged under Rule 847(3), the Adjudicative Committee canvassed Mr Renault as to whether the RIB would be prepared to amend the charge.  He advised that the RIB would not agree to an amendment.  He pointed out that the RIB had already formed the view that no blame could be attributed to Ms Johnson for her helmet coming adrift. Therefore, there was no basis for a charge under 847(3).

The issue

[53] The primary question to be resolved, is whether Ms Johnson’s decision to continue driving to the finish line after her helmet became dislodged, constituted careless behavior under the circumstances and under the guidance that existed at the time of the incident. The Adjudicative Committee must consider whether, based on the facts, Ms Johnson’s actions amounted to carelessness, by proceeding without the protection of a helmet for the remainder of the race.

[ 54] The RIB Penalty Guide defines careless driving as follows:

Whether a person acts carelessly is a matter of fact. The issue is whether the driver exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances to ensure a lack of care and attention by the driver does not compromise his or her own safety and that of all others in the race. It does not normally involve an intent to be careless or a failure to exercise reasonable care, although there may be occasions when the action is deliberate. It is not heeding or caring about the harmful consequences that may or are likely to in ignorance of the rules of harness racing, or did not mean to be careless, or is inexperienced or lacks the necessary skill.

[55] Therefore, for the purpose of this charge, the elements of the offence that must be considered and established by the RIB are:

That by continuing to drive to the finish of the race, after her helmet was dislodged:

• Ms Johnson drove carelessly as a matter of fact.
• Ms Johnson failed to exercise a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent Driver would exercise in the same circumstances.
• Ms Johnson’s lack of the necessary care and attention compromised not only her own safety, by driving without her helmet, but potentially the safety of other (Drivers or horses) in the race.
• Ms Johnson did not pay attention to, or care about, the negative outcomes that could occur, because she was either unaware of the Rules pertaining to this incident; did not intend to be careless, or she is inexperienced and lacks the skills needed.

Discussion and Analysis

[56] Careless driving is assessed by determining whether a Driver failed to exercise the level of care and attention expected of a reasonable and prudent Driver, under the given circumstances.

[57] This Rule is designed to safeguard the safety of both the Driver and others involved in a race. It is important to note that careless driving generally does not require intent or a deliberate lack of care, although intentional acts may sometimes be present.

[58] Such conduct may arise from ignoring or being unaware of potentially harmful outcomes, a lack of familiarity with the Rules, inexperience, or insufficient skill.

[59] The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, i.e. is it more probable than not, Ms Johnson acted with the level of care and attention expected of a reasonable and prudent Harness Driver, when she chose not to withdraw her horse from the race, after her helmet was dislodged. The onus of proof rests with the RIB.

[60] The assessment is directed by an objective test of the overall circumstances and does not require proof of absolute faultlessness.

[61] Although there are notable differences between operating a car on public roads and driving a horse on a racetrack, the underlying concept of carelessness is common to both scenarios. This principle centres on the expectation that a Driver, regardless of the setting, must adhere to a level of care and attention that is considered reasonable and prudent. In judicial guidance, such as the decision in Savieti v Police, the Court of Appeal clarified that carelessness is determined by whether the driver failed to exercise the degree of caution that a reasonable and prudent person would maintain under similar circumstances. This benchmark provides a useful reference for evaluating conduct on the racetrack, as well as on the road, ensuring consistency in applying the test for carelessness. This objective test has long been consistently applied by the Courts, as well as the Racing Codes.

[62] The application of the Careless Driving Rule, requires recognition that fault may not always be established to the requisite standard in every circumstance. There are occasions where the actions or omissions of participants that lead to racing incidents or accidents, may be without fault. His principle is underscored by judicial guidance in Savieti v Police. For example, Mr Lawson in his submission, alluded to the fact that from time to time racing gear, such as bandages or boring poles, come adrift during racing. He pointed out that such incidents can cause safety to Drivers or horses, but the responsible Drivers do not always retire from the race, and nor are they generally charged with careless driving for failing to do so.

[63] Importantly, this highlights the fact that the assessment of carelessness is governed by an objective standard, focusing on the conduct itself, rather than any subjective intent or awareness. The objective test serves to ensure consistency in evaluating whether the Driver’s behaviour met the expected level of caution and prudence, under the prevailing circumstances.

Assessment of Films and Submissions

[64] Cases of this nature are extremely rare.  The written submissions lodged by Mr Lawson and Mr Renault were very helpful. They were notably thorough and assisted in clarifying the positions of the parties. Both points of view were comprehensive, well-considered and persuasive. They also provided a valuable foundation, offering the Adjudicative Committee their detailed perspectives into the relevant issues pertaining to the case.

[65] In addition to considering the submissions, the Adjudicative Committee also reviewed the race films and considered the legal principles.  To this end, the Adjudicative Committee took particular note of the race films, to assess not only the loss of her helmet, but also Ms Johnson’s response after it was dislodged. This thorough review of both visual evidence and submissions, ensured that all relevant perspectives were considered.

[66] The central issue for determination, was whether Ms Johnson can be deemed careless solely for participating in a race without a helmet affixed, or whether carelessness requires an additional act or omission, that compromises her safety or that of other Drivers.

[67] The primary observation was that Ms Johnson continued to drive towards the finish line after losing her helmet. Importantly, aside from this action, there were no further acts or omissions suggesting that her own safety or that of other competitors, was compromised.

[68] In essence, the RIB argued that the primary safety risk in this case was not to other Drivers, but to Ms Johnson herself and that the Rule is not limited to how a horse is steered or positioned in a race, but also potential risk must be considered.  The Adjudicative Committee does not entirely agree with this interpretation and noted in this case, the distinct absence of any sudden, abrupt, or unnecessary movements that would typically indicate careless driving. Had any risky manoeuvres occurred, they would have been given weight to Mr Renault’s argument, but none were identified, nor were any reasonable potential risks, arising from her manner of driving, pointed out. Quite simply, after her helmet was dislodged, Ms Johnson assumed a parked position and completed the race without interference.  It is apparent from the films, that there was no actual or potential safety risk in doing so.  Other than not completing the race with her helmet affixed, the films do not identify any other act or omission that could reasonably be said to have compromised the safety of her or her fellow Drivers. The Adjudicative Committee concluded that something more than potential or unforeseen risk, is therefore required.

[69] This is in contrast to the case involving the RIB v Wallace (30/05/24) – where Graduation Driver Mr Wallace’s helmet came adrift during a trial and contacted the leg of a trailing runner.  He was charged with not having his helmet strap secured (per R847(3)) and fined $200.  This was clearly a safety issue due to the contact with the trailing horse and serves as an example of the type of risk that Mr Renault referred to, but despite the obvious safety risk, he was not charged with careless driving.

[70] Mr Renault submitted that the NSW Harness case involving Driver F Schmetzer, serves as a precedent.  The RIB provided the Adjudicative Committee a video replay link.  Having viewed the footage and considered the Stewards Report from the meeting concerned, the Adjudicative Committee believes it cannot be said that this case is a precedent, as there are marked differences.  First,  Australian Harness Rule 159A(1) requires a Driver to wear a helmet when riding or driving a horse and Australian Harness Rule 168(1)(e) relates to Improper Driving.  Second, the films clearly show Driver F Schmetzer in an awkward position near the rails and she shifted ground in a situation where she could have placed her safety and that of Drivers at risk. This case is interesting, but its relevance is limited value, due to the fact that the Driver Ms Schmetzer was charged with different offences and she admitted both charges.  On that basis, it is difficult to make a ‘like’ for ‘like’ comparison.

[71] In the course of deliberations, the Adjudicative Committee considered the relevance of Ms Johnson’s status as a Junior Driver, specifically whether her relative lack of experience may have influenced her decision-making during the incident. While it was acknowledged that a less experienced Driver might respond differently, compared to someone with more experience when confronted with unexpected circumstances in a race, the Adjudicative Committee emphasised that the application of the Rules remains consistent, regardless of a Driver’s status. Ultimately, Ms Johnson’s status as a Junior Driver, does not exempt her from liability, if her actions were found to be culpable. The Rules, where applicable, apply equally to all Drivers, but the Adjudicative Committee accepted, that varying levels of experience could lead to differing judgements in similar situations.

Conclusion and Decision

[72] Mr Renault contended, that the definition of careless driving in the Penalty Guide, is sufficiently broad enough to conclude that Ms Johnson was careless by continuing to drive after her helmet was dislodged, thereby compromising her own safety. Conversely, Mr Lawson, submitted that the evidence did not support a finding of carelessness. The only common ground was that the loss of the helmet during the running of the race was accidental, and no blame could be attributed to Ms Johnson.

[73] After undertaking a detailed analysis of all the evidence put forward, including a comprehensive review of the relevant race footage and the submissions from both parties, the Adjudicative Committee determined that the charge of careless driving brought against Ms Johnson, was not proven to the required standard.

[74] The Adjudicative Committee noted that if there had been an established Rule or Policy obliging Drivers to withdraw from a race after the loss of a helmet—particularly when combined with a clear act or omission that endangered safety—the outcome might have been different. As it stood however, the absence of such a Rule or an additional act compromising safety, led to the conclusion that the charge could not be upheld.

[75] The Adjudicative Committee acknowledges that this incident brought to light a deficiency in the existing Rules, which was promptly addressed by Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) and the Racing Integrity Board (RIB), to prevent similar situations in the future. And despite the outcome, the Adjudicative Committee reaffirms that Harness Drivers are obligated to give paramount importance to both horse welfare and safety, as clearly stipulated in the Rules, Regulations, and Official Notices.

[76] The charge is dismissed.