NZ Metro TC 21 April 2022 – R6 – (heard at Rangiora on 8 May 2022) – Ian Cameron

BACKGROUND:

Information No. A16141 filed by Stipendiary Steward, Paul Williams, alleges that the Respondent, Driver, Ian Cameron, misconducted himself when failing to remain in the Stewards Room and directing offensive language towards Stewards, following Race 6, Airpark Canterbury Handicap Trot.

The Information was filed with the Adjudicative Committee on race night and heard at the meeting of Rangiora HRC at Rangiora on 8 May 2022.

The Respondent had signed the information ”I do admit a breach of the Rule”. 

Rule 303 provides:

(2)  No person or body who holds a permit or licence under these Rules and no owner, trainer, breeder, stablehand, unlicensed apprentice or racing manager shall misconduct himself or fail to comply with any request, direction, or instruction of any Stipendiary Steward, Racing Investigator or Starter.

EVIDENCE:

Chief Stipendiary Steward, Nigel McIntyre, said that the Respondent was requested by Stewards to attend an inquiry into his whip use when driving PRINCE TEKA in Race 6 at the meeting. It was indicated to the Respondent that he was to be charged. Mr McIntyre produced a copy of the interview with Mr Cameron, which Mr Cameron accepted was an accurate record.

PW   The Rules say you cannot engage the elbow or the shoulder.

IC     Yeah

PW   We are going to put a charge to the Committee because you were warned five starts ago.

IC     Just forget it. I’m finished that will do me. I can’t be bothered with this. That’s the bloody end of it.

PW   Mr Cameron

IC     I can’ t be bothered with this. I’ve listened to bullshit.

PW   Mr Cameron

IC     No. Shove it up your arse.

Mr McIntyre said that it is unacceptable to talk to Stewards in that manner. Mr Cameron has been driving for a long time and he has always been good to deal with in the past. Mr Cameron accepts that this behaviour was unacceptable and has admitted the breach. Mr Cameron’s refusal to accept the charge on the day has resulted in a delay in the whip charge being heard.

Mr Cameron said that when Stewards told him he was to be charged for his whip action, he had referred to the whip action of the driver of the winner of the race. Stewards told him that they were not looking at that driver, but only at him. He said that it was only the second time he had driven with a whip in the last 2-3 months. He had been justifiably warned recently for his whip use but he felt that, in this race, his actions had been no different from the actions of the driver of the winning horse. This had upset him, he said.

DECISION:

The Respondent having admitted the breach it is found proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Mr McIntyre referred the Committee to the penalties handed down in three recent misconduct cases. Those penalties were $850, $800 and $400. The level of offending in the first two cases was higher than in this case. The lowest of the fines was in a case where the Respondent had been told a charge would be laid and had showed a lack of respect for the Stewards. The present case is closer to that case, Mr McIntyre said, and he submitted that a fine of $400-$500 would be appropriate.

Mr Cameron declined the opportunity to make any submission.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point for penalty for misconduct. Obviously, the circumstances of a misconduct charge can vary greatly in terms of nature and seriousness.

In fixing a starting point for penalty in this case, we have been principally guided by the case of RIU v Doody (January 2021) in which the Respondent was requested to appear before the Stewards to discuss his whip use in a race. He did so, but after a brief discussion, he told the Stewards to do whatever was required, before exiting the hearing. The Respondent was fined the sum of $400 and we have taken that as the starting point in this case. The starting point takes into account that the breach was admitted and that the Respondent had an impeccable record over many years in the industry, as in this case.

In the Doody case, two other misconduct charges were referred to the Committee involving the Respondent, in each case, failing to attend a hearing. A fine of $400 was imposed in each of those two cases.

From that starting point, the Committee has applied an uplift in this case because of the language that the Respondent directed at Stewards prior to walking out of the hearing. While that language was not the worst, it was still quite unacceptable for Stewards to be spoken to in that manner by the Respondent. The Committee has fixed the uplift at $100.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY:

The Respondent, Ian Cameron, is fined $500.