You are here: Home / Race Days / Dummy Location - 1 January 2001 / Non Raceday Inquiry - NZTR v PM Gerard (heard on raceday at Ashburton, 17 October 2010)

Non Raceday Inquiry - NZTR v PM Gerard (heard on raceday at Ashburton, 17 October 2010)



Informant:  JM McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:  PM Gerard - Licensed Trainer

Information No:  243

Meeting:  Ashburton Racing Club

Date:  17 October 2010

Venue:  Ashburton Raceway

Rule No:  610(2)(a)

Judicial Committee:  KG Hales, Chairman - JM Phelan, Committee Member

Plea:  Admitted



On Sunday 17 October 2010, at the Ashburton Raceway, Stipendiary Steward JM McLaughlin filed an Information alleging that Ms PM Gerard (Class A Trainer) had ridden track work without wearing an approved safety vest.


Mr McLaughlin produced a letter from the Chief Executive of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, authorising him to file an Information alleging a breach of Rule 610(2)(a) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing.


Rule 610(2)(a) reads as follows:


A rider shall, when mounted on a horse wear


(a)        A properly fastened body protector of a type and standard approved by

NZTR, which shall be in a satisfactory condition and shall have attached to it a manufacturer’s label that states that it complies with the relevant type and standard approved by NZTR;”


Ms Gerard has indicated, on the Information, that she admits the charge (which is therefore deemed to be proved).  She has further indicated that she does not wish to be present at the hearing of an Information.


The facts of the matter were simple.  Ms Gerard was detected riding track work at the Ashburton Raceway on 12 October 2010, without wearing an approved body protector as described in Rule 610(2)(a).



Mr J McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, submitted that a penalty should be imposed on Ms Gerard that is consistent with penalties imposed for similar breaches.



We note from the schedule of penalties imposed that on 24 October 2009, L (Licensed Jockey) was fined $375 for riding track work without an approved body protector.  In the case of H (Licence Holder) and S (Apprentice Jockey) (jointly charged) fines totalling $350 were imposed as a result of S wearing an unapproved body protector.

After giving consideration to the above, we consider that Ms Gerard can be given credit for an early admission of the charge, and for not requiring a formal hearing of the Information.


Ms Gerard is fined $375 accordingly.



Document Actions