You are here: Home / Race Days / Banks Peninsula RC - 24 September 2010 / Banks Peninsula RC - 24 September 2010 - R 8

Banks Peninsula RC - 24 September 2010 - R 8



638(1)(d)

RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION

Informant:  Mr M. Davidson - Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  Mr R. J. Hannam – Licensed Jockey

Information No:  238

Meeting:  Banks Peninsula Racing Club                  

Date:  24 September 2010

Venue:  Motukarara Raceway            

Race 8:  Dr C. G. Murfitt & Associates Maiden

Rule:  638(1)(d)

Judicial Committee:  J. M. Phelan, Chairman - K. G. Hales, Committee Member

Plea:  Not Admitted

 

Charge:

Following the running of Race 8, the Dr C. G. Murfitt & Associates Maiden, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr M. Davidson against Licensed Jockey Mr R. J. Hannam under Rule 638(1)(d) alleging careless riding.

 

The information reads as follows.

 

“I the abovenamed informant allege that the abovenamed Defendant committed a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that R. Hannam rider of Kincaple Princess permitted his mount to shift outwards when not clear causing Reuben (S. Muniandy) to check.” 

 

Rule 638(1)(d) reads as follows.

 

“(1) A rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be:

(a) …..

(b) …..

(c) …..

(d) careless…”

 

Mr Hannam had indicated on the Information that this breach of the Rules was not admitted.  He agreed that he understood the charge and the Rule it was brought under.

 

Facts:

Stipendiary Steward Mr McLaughlin gave evidence and used video coverage from various angles to show that at about the 400 metre mark Mr Hannam, riding “Kincaple Princess”, was running on when he moved his horse outwards into the line of “Reuben” ridden by Mr S. Muniandy.  As result Mr Muniandy had to stand up and check his mount.

 

Mr Muniandy gave evidence that he suffered interference as alleged.  He also said that his horse was “not good enough” at that stage, but that Mr Hannam was only a bare length in front of him when he moved outwards. 

 

Mr Hannam asked Mr Muniandy if he had to check his mount, and he answered that he had to sit up on him.  He agreed that his horse was not going well at the time of this incident.  He was also asked if it was a “severe bump” and he agreed that it was not severe, but that there was contact.

 

Mr Hannam gave evidence that his line was dictated by a horse on his inside, and this resulted in his horse coming out more than he intended.  Mr Hannam was asked by Mr Davidson if he had taken hold of his mount during this incident, and he agreed that he had not.

 

In summary Mr Davidson said that he was riding his mount along and shifting out when he was never clear of Mr Muniandy who had to check.  He agreed that Mr Muniandy’s horse was battling at the time, but that he was still entitled to his line.

 

In summary Mr Hannam said that there had been contact, but that he had been riding his horse competitively, and that there were worse things that happened in a race.

 

After hearing the evidence we adjourned to consider our decision.

 

Decision:

We carefully reviewed the evidence and the video coverage, and we were satisfied that at the time of this incident Mr Hannam was riding his horse forward.  He moved outwards into the line of Mr Muniandy’s horse when he was not the required distance clear, and as a result Mr Muniandy had to check his mount.  We were satisfied that Mr Hannam had ridden carelessly and that the charge had been proved.

 

On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that a full written decision would be provided later, and we gave the following oral decision.

 

“Having heard the evidence, and having seen the video coverage we are satisfied that at about the 300 metre mark Mr Hannam was riding his horse forward, and at this time he moved outwards to secure a run.  At this time he made contact with “Reuben” ridden by Shankar Muniandy, pushing that horse wider on the track.  We are satisfied that the riding by Mr Hannam was careless and we find the charge proved.”

 

Submissions on Penalty:

In relation to penalty Mr Davidson advised that Mr Hannam had received suspension for two previous breaches of this Rule in February 2010.   Mr Davidson said that Mr Hannam was a very busy rider, and that his riding record was therefore very good.  Mr Davidson said that the breach was mid to low range and that Mr Hannam was a national rider. He submitted that a suspension of approximately four days would be appropriate in this case.

 

Mr Hannam said that he had over 800 rides last season and that he had only two suspensions in that time. Mr Davidson agreed that he had an excellent record.  Mr Hannam said that he did not want to delay any term of suspension. 

 

We adjourned to consider the matter of penalty.

 

Reasons and Penalty:

To Mr Hannam’s credit we took into account his excellent riding record, and that this breach was assessed as being mid to low range. On the other hand we also needed to take into account that Mr Hannam had been suspended twice for breaching this Rule in February 2010.

 

After considering the submissions from both parties we decided that a four day suspension was an appropriate penalty in this case.  On returning to the Enquiry Room we advised the parties that Mr Hannam’s Jockey’s Licence was suspended from after the completion of racing today, the 24 September 2010, until after the completion of racing on 2 October 2010.

 

The specific days of this suspension are Whangarei on 29 September, Woodville-Pahiatua on 30 September, Hamilton on 1 October and Hastings or CJC on 2 October  2010.

 

 

 

Document Actions