NZ Metro TC 28 November 2025 – R7 (heard 5 December 2025 at Addington) – Mia Holbrough

Following the running of Race 7, McMillan Equine Feeds New Zealand Junior Drivers Championships (Heat 4) Mobile Trot, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, alleging that Junior Driver, Mia Holbrough, as the Driver of BILLY KIMBER in the race “drove carelessly by allowing her horse to trail too closely and contact the helmet of Emily Johnson (HE AINT FAKIN) on several occasions which was dislodged”.

The hearing of the charge was adjourned on racenight and was heard at the meeting of NZ Metropolitan TC on 5 December 2025.

Ms Holbrough had signed the Statement by the Respondent “I do not admit the breach” and she confirmed this at the hearing of the charge. Ms Holbrough, a Junior Driver, was assisted at the hearing by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr Brad Mowbray.

Rule 869 provides as follows:

(3)   No driver in any race shall drive:

       (b)  carelessly

EVIDENCE:

Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, showed the available video replays of the first 800 metres of the 1980 mobile start race. He pointed out the two runners involved racing into the first bend – HE AINT FAKIN, driven by Emily Johnson, racing three places back in the one-out line, being trailed by BILLY KIMBER, driven by the Respondent, Mia Holbrough.

Mr Renault said that Stewards were alleging that Ms Holbrough had failed to maintain a safe trailing distance at two separate stages of the race, and had allowed her runner to get too close to the runner in front. He pointed out, on a video replay, the head of Ms Holbrough’s runner make contact with the helmet of Ms Johnson on several occasions prior to the entrance to the straight on the first occasion, and then again at approximately the 1350 metres when the fastener on the helmet detached, resulting in Ms Johnson’s coming off and falling to the track.

Mr Renault pointed out that Ms Johnson’s helmet could be seen to be “bobbing” up and down with the contact and the vizor fall over Ms Johnson’s eyes before it, eventually, fell off her head. The helmet remained in place over the first incidents of contact, Mr Renault said. He alleged that Ms Holbrough was not having any problems with her horse. She had a good hold of it, without any concerns, but had simply allowed it to get too close to the helmet of Ms Johnson, he said. She had driven carelessly in failing to maintain a safe distance between her and the runner in front, causing interference to that Driver.

Stewards believed that there were no issues with the helmet, it was in good condition, and it would not have come adrift without the continued contact from Ms Holbrough’s runner, Mr Renault said. Stewards were satisfied that it was securely attached prior to the start of the race, he said. The incident was avoidable, he submitted, and Ms Holbrough had the sole responsibility of ensuring that she was not trailing too close. The contact was not “minor, insignificant contact”, and dislodging the helmet raised safety concerns for both Ms Johnson and following runners.

Ms Holbrough said that this was her first drive on a trotter. The horse is known to gallop, and it had galloped in its previous start. The pace had eased at the wrong time and she did wish to “grab” the horse. She believed that she had given the helmet “one nudge” and it had come off. It could not have been fastened she said. She submitted that contact to the helmet of the Driver in front occurs in every race. She said that she had full control of her horse. What happened was a racing incident, she submitted.

Mr Mowbray said that the horse in the parked position had eased the pace awaiting the 3-wide line to come around. He did not agree with the Stewards that the helmet had come off because of the force of the contact. It should not have fallen off had it been attached securely, he said. The chances of neither horse had been affected, he added.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

There is no specific Rule making trailing too close behind a driving offence, and it is only an offence when the closeness results in interference, contact or danger. Trailing so close behind as to knock another Driver’s helmet off, can be ruled as careless driving, if the contact is judged avoidable and due to the Driver failing to maintain safe distance or control.

A Driver has an obligation to ensure that contact is not made with the runner in front and can, if needed, pull out into clear racing room. In this case, Ms Holbrough, by her own admission, had “full control” of her horse.

If contact occurs and the Driver did not maintain safe spacing, then that is careless driving. There was clear and visible contact to the helmet of Ms Johnson, initially, over some distance and then again, after some respite, before the helmet eventually became undone and fell off. There was no evidence that the helmet was not securely fitted, and the Adjudicative Committee is happy to accept that it was.

In determining this case, the Adjudicative Committee has looked at three things:

• Was there contact? The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that there was significant contact on a number of occasions.
• Was the contact avoidable? Again, the Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that there was no factor preventing Ms Holbrough maintaining a safe distance.
• Were there consequences? Clearly there were. Ms Johnson’s helmet fell off.

The Adjudicative Committee can infer/find carelessness without direct evidence when:

1. The type of accident normally does not occur without carelessness;
2. The instrumentality causing harm was under Ms Holbrough’s control; and
3. Ms Johnson did not contribute to the harm.

Under the definition of “careless driving” in the RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide it is stated:

“Whether a person acts carelessly is a matter of fact. The issue is whether a 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”.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr Renault said that Ms Holbrough has had 174 drives this season and has a previous careless driving breach on her record – on 30 November 2025 at Methven TC, careless driving striking a wheel, suspended 2 days up to and including 6 December.

The Penalty Guide suggests a starting point for a low-level, second breach of a 3-days suspension, Mr Renault said. He submitted that this was a low-level breach but with high-level consequences, and that a suspension of 3 or 4 days would be an appropriate penalty.

Ms Holbrough requested that any term of suspension commence after the meeting of Oamaru HRC on 10 December, where she has a number of notified drives.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Adjudicative Committee had found, for the reasons given above, that Ms Holbrough has driven carelessly. The degree of carelessness was low, but it was of concern that her carelessness raised, what could have been, serious health and safety consequences. However, fortunately for all concerned, no harm resulted. For the purposes of determining penalty, the Adjudicative Committee is prepared to accept that the carelessness was low-level.

The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide recommends a starting point for penalty for a low-level, second careless driving breach of a 3-days suspension. The case was an unusual one, most likely without precedent in recent times, and given the unusual nature, Ms Holbrough was quite justified in defending the charge.

The Penalty Guide starting point – a 3-days suspension – is an appropriate penalty for the breach on this occasion.

CONCLUSION:

Junior Driver, Mia Holbrough, is suspended from after the close of racing on 10 December 2025, up to and including 18 December 2025 – 3 days.