Racing NSW Appeals - N.S.W Gallops - Racehorse TALK   harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Racing NSW Appeals - N.S.W Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Racing NSW Appeals  (Read 30018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2020-Feb-18, 10:40 AM Reply #50 »
Latest updates from Racing NSW on appeal decisions.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2020-Feb-25, 05:58 PM Reply #51 »
Several more decisions from the Appeals Panel three of which I've extracted and recommend for those interested in such matters .

Grant Allard secret commission case ...very confusing and conflicting evidence .....Anthony Newing .& Tommy Berry had some luck ..TB got out of jail free card .

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-A-Newing-22-Feb-2020.pdf

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Tommy-Berry-20-Feb.pdf

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/APPEAL-OF-GRANT-ALLARD-Reasons-For-Decision-19-Feb-2020.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:




https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/


« Last Edit: 2020-Feb-25, 06:08 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2020-Aug-14, 09:39 AM Reply #52 »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2020-Oct-20, 10:23 AM Reply #54 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-D-Boal.pdf

Breach of COVID-19 and false testimony DQ’d from 6 months on each charge to 4 a total 8 months on the sidelines.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Marc-Lambourne-Glen-Pollett-AMENDED.pdf

This was a majority decision two lay members the majority still a big reduction in original penalties $6k and $5K both reduced to $2K quite a few precedents referred to very interesting observations most of them.

Orders Appeal by MrLambourne
1.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, Mr Lambourne is fined $1,000
(4)50%of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded.
2.In relation to the second charge of breach of AR228(d):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, no penalty is imposed.
3.In relation to the third charge of breach of AR232(b):
(1)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(2)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrLambourne is fined $1,000.

Appeal by MrPollett
4.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrPollett is fined $2,000.
In respect of both appeals5.50% of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded


Giddy Up :beer:


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 23672
« 2020-Oct-26, 04:54 AM Reply #55 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-D-Boal.pdf

Breach of COVID-19 and false testimony DQ’d from 6 months on each charge to 4 a total 8 months on the sidelines.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Marc-Lambourne-Glen-Pollett-AMENDED.pdf

This was a majority decision two lay members the majority still a big reduction in original penalties $6k and $5K both reduced to $2K quite a few precedents referred to very interesting observations most of them.

Orders Appeal by MrLambourne
1.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, Mr Lambourne is fined $1,000
(4)50%of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded.
2.In relation to the second charge of breach of AR228(d):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, no penalty is imposed.
3.In relation to the third charge of breach of AR232(b):
(1)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(2)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrLambourne is fined $1,000.

Appeal by MrPollett
4.In relation to the first charge for a breach of AR228(a):
(1)The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)The appeal against severity of penalty is allowed.
(3)In lieu of the penalty imposed by the Stewards, MrPollett is fined $2,000.
In respect of both appeals5.50% of the appeal deposit is to be forfeited and 50% is to be refunded


Giddy Up :beer:


They are "the Media". They do and say what they like and are a protected species. The judiciary will always back them up regardless of what they have done.

There is one law for the media and one for the rest of us.

Can you imagine what would happen to us if we stole secure documents and gave them to the media? Nothing apparently


ABC reporter Daniel Oakes won’t be prosecuted over Afghan Files reporting

ABC journalist Daniel Oakes won’t be prosecuted over the public broadcaster’s 2017 series The Afghan Files, which wraps up the Australian Federal Police’s investigation into allegations he obtained classified information.

The Australian Federal Police has informed ABC managing director David Anderson that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions won’t proceed with any action against Oakes.

The news comes three months after the same decision was made in relation to ABC journalist Sam Clark, who also worked on The Afghan Files.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/abc-reporter-wont-be-prosecuted-over-afghan-files-reporting/






Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2020-Dec-08, 03:44 PM Reply #56 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-Dr-K-Squire.pdf

Dr  Squire  prescribed  and dispensed injectable  Altrenogest  (in  the form  of  Ovu-Mate  Injection)  to licensed  trainer  Mrs  Julie Pratten  on  1  January 2020,  to  use  such  substance  in  a  thoroughbred  horse,  with  such  advice  in contravention of advice published by Racing New South Wales, which led to Mrs Pratten breaching AR 240(2)  as  a  result  of the  detection  of  the  prohibited  substances  trendione  and  epitrenbolone  (both anabolic steroids) in a prerace urine sample taken from her horse, Rahaan, prior to it racing at the Ballina Races on 17January2020.

Very interesting case of a Vet 's professional responsibility to be aware of advice from Racing NSW regarding substances that are prohibited..he also failed to attend a stewards inquiry when required to do so ....6 months suspension.

Giddy Up :beer:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2020-Dec-18, 10:36 PM Reply #57 »
Trainer and stablehand had their penalties reduced on appeal .......horse was injected with substances which included one which caused the horse to die .....the product had been prescribed for treatment to a harness horse trained by the stablehand......and not for the racehorse Lesham.


https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-Ostini-and-Faulker.pdf

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-Ostini-and-Faulker.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Jan-28, 09:40 AM Reply #59 »
Update on Appeal decisions by the RNSW Appeal Panel since the last report was posted.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-S-Allen.pdf

Stablehand and track work rider Allen lost his appeal against the severity of the sentence .....imposed for failure to disclose some criminal convictions but was given some slight reduction ,,,thereby entitling him to a refund of the appeal deposit...it seems only a small win offsets the costs ..despite not having complete  success.

Giddy Up :beer: 


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Feb-23, 06:57 PM Reply #61 »
Stud master sent two horses to the knackery ...both were described as being in pain with no quality of life ...but he failed to have a vet certify to that or to certify that euthanasia was appropriate ...his disqualification was reduced from the two years penalty imposed by stewards.......to 11 months ...he was penalised for giving false evidence to the stewards... despite being disqualified...he received a green light in effect from PVL to carry on certain activities ...he was refunded his appeal deposit..

"On the day that the disqualification was imposed, Racing NSW, through its Chief
Executive Officer Mr P. V’Landys AM, lessened the impact of the disqualification
imposed on the Appellant by making a determination that the prohibition outlined in
AR263(l) (prohibiting a disqualified person from conducting or assisting with
thoroughbred breeding in Australia) and AR 263(n) (prohibiting a disqualified
person from permitting or authorising any other person to conduct any activity
associated with racing, sales or breeding on the disqualified person’s behalf) would
not apply to the Appellant.
 He was also granted permission to participate in
thoroughbred horse sales and related events (263(n)), but not to attend sales."



https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-T-Nolan.pdf

Giddy Up :beer:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Mar-03, 10:39 PM Reply #62 »
Racing Appeal Panel decisions on the appeals of Adam Hyeronimus-and-Blake Paine have been handed down .

The appeals against severity of the punishment have yet to be determined ......Stewards gave AH 3 years and BP 2years 4 months.

"The Appellants have also appealed in relation to the severity of the penalties imposed on  them.    The  Stewards  and  the  legal  representatives  for  the  parties  should  notifyRacing NSW as soon as possible as to whether an oral hearing is desired in relation to the severity appeals, or whether they can proceed by way of written submission.The Panel will resolve any disagreement." 

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-Hyeronimus-and-Paine-Final-23-Feb-2021-1-March-1.pdf

Very lengthy decision with transcripts of the inquiry attached....... in the end the panel did not believe the explanations that the transfer of funds were gifts finding the explanations implausible.

Giddy Up :beer:





Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Apr-13, 10:41 PM Reply #63 »
Racing NSW Appeal Panel decide on the penalties to be imposed on Adam Hyeronimus-and-Blake Paine .

A very lengthy and considered decision by the panel chaired by Richard Beasley SC whose views on the mandatory penalty are most likely held by many of us which is they are too harsh. and do not fit the "crime"The full judgment is in the link below what follows is my attempt to extract the important issues.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Hyeronimus-and-Paine-penalty-reasons-AMENDED-1.pdf


1RACING APPEAL PANEL OF NSWTHE APPEALS OF ADAM HYERONIMUS AND BLAKE PAINE
The Panel: Mr R Beasley SC(Presiding Member); Ms J Madsen; Mr C Tuck
For the Stewards: Mr M Van Gestel, Chairman of Stewards
For the appellantAdam Hyeronimus: Mr P O’Sullivan, Solicitor
For the appellant Blake Paine: Mr M Barnes, Solicitor
Date of Hearing onPenalty: 26 March 2021
Date of Reasons:8 April 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY


]7.On 26 March 2021, the Panel heard submissions in relation to appeals brought by the appellants against the severity of the penalties imposed upon them by the Stewards.Mr P O’Sullivan, Solicitor, again appeared for Mr Hyeronimus, and Mr M Barnes, Solicitor, again appeared for Mr Paine. The Stewards were represented by the Chairman of Stewards, Mr M Van Gestel. Oral evidence was given by Mr Neil Paine, Blake Paine’s father, who is Mr Hyeronimus’ uncle. Mr Hyeronimus also gave some oral evidence.[/b]

Purpose of imposing penalties 9.The matters of most significance in considering penalties to be imposed for breaches of rules of professional associations and sporting organisations and industries are well settled. Penalties are not primarily imposed for the purpose of punishment, but are a means of protecting the industry. In the case of thoroughbred racing they are to demonstrate to the public that racing officials will take steps to ensure that the reputation of the sport, and its integrity, are protected:
The Rules, breach of which can result in substantial penalties, are in place so that racing authorities can control the sport as required,and also protect it.
10.While penalty provisions in the Rules of Racing provide a scheme for professional discipline that is quite separate to how sentencing is approached under the general criminal law, deterrence is also said to be another important matter, itself related to both the protection of the sport, and the racing public. Both the racing industry, and the racing and betting public, need to be protected from a variety of conduct that constitutes an objectively serious breach of the Rules.


 The question to be asked is what kind of penalty is required to deter the conduct involved fora particular breach?
11.For the breaches of AR 115(1)(e) by Mr Hyeronimus,part of the answer to this question has been provided by the drafter of the Rules. Absent “special circumstances” (which would have required a guilty plea by the appellant), the Panel must impose a minimum penalty of a two-year disqualification. Whether a rule that means a jockey who has a $50 bet on a horse he or she is riding in a race should face a penalty as severe as a minimum 2-year disqualification actually does anything to protect the image of the sport is a matter that could be debated, but won’t be in these reasons.
Whether such a rider should face the same minimum penalty as a jockey who has a bet on a horse in a race other than the horse they are riding is another matter that could be debated, but again will not be in these reasons.
 

There is no doubt that the offending under the false evidence rule by both appellants(AR232(i)) is objectively serious. While it can probably be characterised as the same false evidence given over and over –that the appellants were not involved in a Punter’s club that Mr Hyeronimus contributed financial stakes too, and that the betting activity the subject of the betting charges was only Mr Paine’s–licenced persons who fail to tell the truth to Stewards seriously undermine the integrity of the sport.

While by no means as important to the penalty to be imposed as the objectively serious nature of the offending and the need to protect the sport, the subjective circumstances of each appellant have been considered by the Panel.16.Mr Hyeronimus is young –thirty now, 26to 27 when the offending occurred. His only work experience and skill set is as the rider of racehorses. He has no trade or qualifications to fall back on during the period of his disqualification. The Panel heard and accepts that he has tried to but has not been able to find employment since his disqualification commenced last September. It is reasonable to conclude that his employment prospects are poor. Mr Hyeronimus faces disqualification during a period of Pandemic, and general economic uncertainty. It is accepted that finding alternative employment for someone whose entire working life has been as a jockey will be very difficult.17.Although there is a limit to what can be found absent expert medical evidence, common sense and experience suggests that the Panel should accept the evidence given by MrNeil Paine that Mr Hyeronimus has faced some dark times since his disqualification, and periods of depression.18.Evidence was also given as to the impacts the disqualification has had on Mr Hyeronimus’s marriage, his family relationships, and obviously on his finances, which is accepted.


Blake Paine.When Mr Paine’s offending of the Rules commenced, he was not an adult by law. He was still a teenager when the offending he has been charged with ended, and is 21 years of age now.20.Based on general experience and the evidence of his father, it is accepted that Mr Paine too has had some dark moments and periods of depression since commencing his disqualification.21.Mr Paine has no skills, trade, qualifications or work experience beyond the work he has done as a stablehand, and as a barrier attendant. He too has not been able to find employment, and his prospects for doing so while disqualified are poor.22.Mr Paine is however clearly someone with a real aptitude for handling horses, as is evidenced by the reference written by Mr Bott on behalf of the Waterhouse-Bott stable.


PenaltiesAdam Hyeronimus–AR115(1)(e)23.Each breach of AR115(1)(e) carries a mandatory 2-year mandatory minimum disqualification.It would be dishonest not to say that absent this mandatory disqualification, this significantly exceeds the penalty I would otherwise impose.
It can be accepted that a jockey placing a bet on a horse they are riding in a race in some manner and to some degree impacts on the integrity of racing. Such conduct therefore warrants either suspension or even disqualification, depending on other circumstances. Absent proper proof however, it should not be automatically assumed that such conduct so damages the integrity of racing that it would justify a penalty as severe as a 2-yeardisqualification. Proper proof would involve evidence of a survey, or expert qualitative or quantitative data research.The conduct of a jockey betting on their own mount can of course be contrasted to a jockey betting on a horse in a race other than the horse they are riding(something Mr Hyeronimus did not do) which is conduct that raises obvious integrity issues, and would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the rider had an actual conflict of interest, and a bias against giving their own mount every chance to win the race.

24.Because a 2-year mandatory minimum disqualification applies to Mr Hyeronimus’s conduct in betting on a horse he was riding, the drafter(or drafters)of this rule clearly considers Mr Hyeronimus’s betting conduct to be as culpable in some way to the kind of horrendous conduct caught by other rules where similar mandatory minimum disqualifications are imposed. However, it should be stated that Mr Hyeronimus is not a cheat, and this must be borne in mind when determining an appropriate total penalty for all his offending under the Rules. He did not, for example, administer a prohibited substance to a horse (AR 243(1) –2-year mandatory minimum disqualification), or do so to affect its performance (AR 244(1) –3-yearminimum disqualification). He did not deliberately(as distinct from through error)fail to ride a horse on its merits to give it every opportunity to win a race. He did not use an electrical device on a horse (AR 231(2)(a) –2-year mandatory minimum disqualification). He did not administer a steroid to a horse in breach of AR 248(1) –2-year mandatory minimum disqualification. He did not “stomach tube”a horse engaged in a race (AR 255(1) –12-monthmandatory minimum disqualification). Despite the similarity between the mandatory minimum penalties for such offending and the mandatory penalty applicable to the breaches of AR115(1)(e) by Mr Hyeronimus for betting on horses he rode,his betting conduct is in a different category. It involves objectively serious breaches of the Rules, but it is not conduct that could rationally be described as involving fundamental dishonesty, an intent to cheat, or cruelty.

25.The Stewards imposed a 2-year disqualification for each of the in-race betting charges, and made those penalties concurrent. In my view, if there is to be a 2-year mandatory disqualification for a breach of AR115(1)(e), then there must be at least some penalty imposed for the separate offending particularised for Charge 2. I would impose a 2-year disqualification for each of Charge 1 and 2, but make 23 months of the penalty for Charge 2 concurrent with the penalty for Charge 1.AR115(1)(c) –other betting charges26.The Stewards imposed a 12-month total disqualification for the other betting charges

Reliance was placed by the appellants on some Victorian penalty decisions for breaches of AR115(1)(c), most notably the Decision of Judge Bowman in Racing Victoria Stewards and John Robertson (RADB, 28/3/19), where a jockey was suspended for 3 months (6 weeks suspended) in relation to 27 breaches of AR 115(1)(c). Certainly the penalty imposed in that matter is more lenient than that imposed by the Stewards here, although the conclusion should not be made from this alone that breaches of this rule are treated differently in Victoria than in NSW. Mr Roberson also pleaded guilty, and had an established gambling problem for which he agreed to treatment. That said, it would be generally desirable for penalties for this offending to be close to uniform and consistent no matter where the offending occurs. 27.A jockey should not bet on any thoroughbred horse race. That is, first, because it is a breach of the rules and will attract a penalty, and secondly because the perception is–and this may well be right -that this is harmful to the image of racing.

There may be other reasons why it is not a good idea for jockeys to gamble on horse racing. It does not appear to have been particularly profitable for Mr Hyeronimus, for example. However, a 12-month disqualification is in excess of the kind of penalty that should be imposed for the offending here. Ordinarily–and depending on the extent of the betting activity and individual circumstances -I would impose a suspension of three to nine months if the circumstances also involved a plea and cooperation with Stewards. They do not there.
 A 6-month disqualification is warranted.AR232(i) –false evidence charge28.While it is related to the betting charges, the conduct involved here is quite separate offending. The denials made by Mr Hyeronimus as to betting activity were in the face of frankly overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and it should be remembered he ultimately pleaded guilty to three betting offences on Day 2 of his appeal hearing. The best that can be said about it is that it is probably not multiple instances of false evidence, but the same false denial made multiple times..

There are numerous precedents for penalties for breaches of AR232(i). Giving false evidence to Stewards, even if that evidence is subsequently retracted, is likely to result in a disqualification. The Appeal of Clint Lundholm(RAP, 7/8/20) is a reasonable parallel to the offending here –Mr Lundholmwas disqualified after he lied about a race day administration of a substance, although unlike here he retracted it within a relatively short period of time. It is a matter of judgment, but on one view the offending here could be considered more serious. However, taking all matters into account, including the youth of Mr Hyeronimus, I would impose a 4-monthdisqualification for this breach of the rules.
Total penaltyI
n total then, Charges 1 and 2 result in a 2-year 1-month disqualification. For the other betting charges, a 6-monthdisqualification is imposed, and for the breach of AR232(i), a 4-month disqualification. In total this would result in 2 years and 11-month disqualification. However, having regard to the relative similarity of all the betting offences, and to the principal of totality in sentencing which can be used analogously when penalising under the Rules of Racing, I would make the 6 month disqualification for the other betting charges concurrent with the penalty for Charges 1 and 2. I would make one month of the 4-month disqualification imposed for the breach of AR232(i) concurrent with the other penalties.

This means the total disqualification is a period of 2-years and 4-months.AR 26331.A 2-year and 4-month disqualification is a long penalty. It has drastic consequences for Mr Hyeronimus, and the Panel is not blasé about them. As indicated above, Mr Hyeronimus’s conduct was stupid, in breach of the rules, and damaging to the image of racing. However, as also noted above, his betting activity does not make him a cheat. Nor did he engage in a cruelty offence, or an offence involving use of Prohibited substances which can readily be seen to be offences that severely impact on what can be described as racing’s “social licence”.32.Although the Panel has no such powers, in those circumstances I would respectfully ask Racing NSW as a Principal Racing Authority to consider-should application be made to it by Mr Hyeronimus–using its powers under relevant parts of AR263 to allow Mr Hyeronimus to resume track riding and riding in trials at some reasonable period prior to the time when he may reapply for his licence.

Blake Paine Betting offences.The Stewards imposed an 18-monthdisqualification on Mr Paine for his breaches of AR236 that related to the offending by Mr Hyeronimus under AR115(1)(e). In doing so, they seem to have used the 2-year mandatory minimum penalty applying to Mr Hyeronimus as a guide of some kind to the penalty they imposed on Mr Paine. That is not the approach taken by the Panel, as no mandatory minimum penalty applies to Mr Paine.34.Mr Paine naively and stupidly went along with his cousin and facilitated his betting activity. He could have placed much of the blame for the offending on his elder cousin, but did not. He was a teenager when the offending occurred. An 18-monthdisqualification is in the Panel’s view a longer penalty than his offending warrants, and is in excess of what is required to send a message that racing will not tolerate this kind of conduct, or to protect the reputation or image of racing. A 6-monthdisqualification is imposed for each breach of AR236 relating to the in-race betting charges. For the second charge, 5-months of this is to be concurrent with the penalty imposed for charge one.
For the balance of the betting offences, a 6-month disqualification is also imposed, to be served concurrently with the penalty for Charges 1 and 2. This reflects the similar nature of the conduct, and the application of the principle of totality of sentencing.

AR232(i)36.As with Mr Hyeronimus, the offending under the false evidence rule is in a different category. For the same reasons as applied to Mr Hyeronimus, a 4-month disqualification is appropriate, with only 1-month of that to be concurrent with the penalty imposed for the betting charges.
Total penalty.The total penalty to be imposed on Mr Paine for the betting offences is a 7-month disqualification. To this, 3 months of the penalty for the breach of AR232(i) is added, meaning a total penalty of a 10-month disqualification. AR26338.As mentioned, Mr Paine was not an adult when the offending first occurred. The entirety of his offending occurred while he was a teenager. He is now 21. Based on the evidence heard by the Panel, his employment prospect outside of the racing industry appear grim.
 Again, I respectfully ask Racing NSW to consider authorising Mr Paine to be able to seek some form of work prior to the expirationof his disqualification by an exercise of discretion under AR 263.Time served39.Both appellants have already served some period of disqualification. There was a period of 3 days prior to a stay being granted on 21 August 2020. That stay was revoked from 22 September 2020 following their plea of guilty to three of the charges brought against them. Mr C Tuck40.Iagree with the penalties imposed by the Presiding Member, with the orders made, and with his reasoning outlined above.
11Ms J Madsen41.I agree with the penalties proposed by the Presiding Member, and with the orders made

.ORDERS Adam Hyeronimus1.Appeal against severity of penalty allowed.2.In lieu of a 3-year disqualification, the appellant is disqualified for 2 years and 4 months.The appellant’s disqualification commenced on 22 September 2020, when he pleaded guilty to charges 20 to 22 (and there is another three days to take into account as well). The appellant may therefore reapply for his licence on19January 2023. 3
.As mentioned in [32] above, the Panel respectfully asks that the Principal Racing Authority (Racing NSW) give consideration to exercising its discretion under AR263(1)(d) and (e) to authorise Mr Hyeronimus to resume riding trackwork and trials at some reasonable time prior to the expiration of his disqualification.4.
Appeal deposit forfeited.

Blake Paine1.Appeal against severity of penalty allowed.2.In lieu of a 2-year 4-month disqualification, the appellant is disqualified for a period of 10 months.That penalty commenced on 22 September 2020 (with a further 3 days needing to be taken into account). The appellant may reapply for his licence on19 July 2021.3.As indicated in [38] above, the Panel respectfully asks Racing NSW to consider exercising its discretion under AR263 to allow Mr Paine to attempt to gain some form

 
[/b]
ENDS

No mention of the Ben Melham case in Victoria significant difference in penalties.

Giddy Up :beer:


« Last Edit: 2021-Apr-13, 10:43 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Apr-14, 08:24 PM Reply #64 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-M-Cahill-1.pdf

This is a turn up Richard Beasley SC overruled by the two lay members.

Giddy up :beer:


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Jun-03, 11:39 AM Reply #66 »
JMac beats his 3 day suspension ......on the face of it the stewards were obliged to charge him ...but the learned appeal panel came to a different view ..a majority decision with the third member taking a different view but with the same outcome no time served .
Watching the race it was a severe interference the horse he knocked out of the way dropped out and only beat one home.
It was JMac's lucky day IMO Mr Pasterfield is the go to guy in NSW he makes every post a winner ..leaves no stone unturned

"Other matters were raised by both Mr Pasterfield and the appellant to explain what they submitted was the horse’s sudden shift out –the fact that it was in blinkers for the first time; the fact that it was new to the track which is tight on the home turn;the
3fact that the horse had an easy run and was travelling well and reacted to seeing “daylight”.

10.The incident concerned in this race is one of those where reasonable minds, viewing the same film, can reach a different conclusion as to whether the careless riding rule has been breach.

Links to the decision and the replay .

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-J-McDonald.pdf

https://racing.racingnsw.com.au/FreeFields/VideoResult.aspx?MeetDate=2021May26&VenueCode=MzUxMTI=&RaceNumber=6&MeetingCategory=Professional&VideoFileType=Stewards

Giddy Up :beer:




 
« Last Edit: 2021-Jun-03, 11:50 AM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Jun-22, 04:29 PM Reply #67 »
Here's an interesting case verbal threats by a stable hand to a trainer after said trainer terminated his services.......stable hand represented by CEO of NSW Jockeys Assocn .

 Penalty reduced but appeal deposit forfeited.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decisions-B-Evans.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Maximus

  • Open
  • User 2900
  • Posts: 134
« 2021-Jun-22, 05:05 PM Reply #68 »
Presumably the same Brent Evans who is a heavyweight jockey on the picnic circuit - hence the representation by the Jockeys Association.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Jul-13, 06:21 PM Reply #69 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Reasons-for-Decision-G-Hickman.pdf

 Swab on unplaced runner returned positive to prohibited substance original penalty $6K reduced to $3k  accepted that it was due to cross contamination and trainer has since altered stabling arrangement to prevent a recurrence.

  https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Smith-AP-Reasons-for-Decision-6-7-21.pdf

7 Months  suspension under the influence whilst in charge of a horse appeal dismissed .
“...[the appellant]...after leading his horse OBELIUSprior to and following the running of race 2 at the Newcastle race meeting on Tuesday 18 May 2021, did provide a sample of his breath which was found, upon analysis, to contain the prohibited substance alcohol at a concentration of 0.144g/100ml, in excess of the threshold level of 0.05g/100ml.”


https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Walter-AP-Reasons-for-Decision-6-7-21.pdf

Riders’ agent dealt with for betting offences majority decision two lay members over ruling the Principal member’s decision on penalty 6 months disqualification imposed.

Giddy Up :beer:



Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Jul-27, 10:31 PM Reply #70 »

Updated appeals decisions

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/

Sutherland's is a very interesting case follows on the rule  introduced following the 4 Corners episode The Final Race.

This is the link..................https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Sutherland-AP-Reasons-for-Decision-19-2-21-1.pdf

Extracts from the decision upholding the appeal follow:-

42. In construing this rule, the Panel’s task is to give the words used by the drafter the
meaning that they are taken to have intended. “Taken to have intended” of course
does not relate to the subjective intention of whoever drafted LR114. That is not
known. All the Panel has to go on is the text of LR114, its stated purpose, and the
application of common sense given that we are asked to interpret rules relating to the
regulation, and protection, of the horse racing industry. Bearing all that in mind, at
least in relation to the words “similarly disposed of”, we prefer the construction of
the rule contended for by the Stewards. We hold this view even though we consider
there is force in the argument put forward on the Appellant’s behalf. An approach
using a somewhat economical use of words has been taken to the drafting of
LR114(5)(e). However, we do not consider the words “similarly disposed of” need
to have the elements or similar elements outlined in the Appellant’s submissions at
[175]. In our view, the words “similarly disposed of” relate more to an end result –
that is, a horse is disposed of (killed) for the purpose of its meat being used as food.


18
43. Both Mr Van Gestel and Ms Heath were in agreement that LR114(5)(e) requires
knowledge and intent. That is, to be found in breach of the rule a person must know
that the horse is “to be, directly or indirectly, sent to an abattoir, knackery or
similarly disposed of”: T63.3095; Appellant’s submissions in chief at [192].

44. In the circumstances here, we have found that the primary intent of the Appellant in
giving the horses Redfu and Rozzi to Mr Brown was for them to be used by Mr
Brown to jump and hunt. While we have also found that the Appellant knew that
there was a risk, once Mr Brown had possession of the horses, that they may not
work out as suitable for hunting and jumping, and hence could be killed for meat for
Mr Brown’s dogs, that was not the intent (destruction for dog food) with which the
Appellant gave Mr Brown the horses. It was a risk that he knew could eventuate,
rather than the intent that he had when giving the horses to Mr Brown.

45. Turning back to the words used in LR114(5)(e), the facts as found by us mean that
what has occurred here is not caught by the rule. For the Appellant to be in breach
of the rule, we consider that his intent must have been, in giving the horses to Mr
Brown, that they would then be killed, and their meat used as food. That was not the
Appellant’s intention. While knowing there was a risk that the horses could be
destroyed for food, his intent was that they be used by Mr Brown for jumping and
hunting. The fact that there was a risk that this would not work out, and the horses
could subsequently be killed (as they were) is not a factual scenario that is caught by
the rule. If the drafter wanted such a scenario to be caught by LR114(5)(e), then the
rule should have, in our view, been drafted to incorporate such circumstances.

46. Accordingly, based on our factual findings as to the Appellant’s intent when sending
the horses to Mr Brown, he has not breached LR114(5)(e). The appeal in relation to
that finding of breach must be allowed, and the penalty imposed set aside.

Conclusions and Orders

47. There remains a severity of penalty appeal to be dealt with in relation to the
Appellant’s pleas of guilty to the breaches of AR52 and AR229(h). Those appeals

19
should be heard as soon as possible. The orders made in the meantime are as
follows:

(1) Appeal in relation to finding of breach of LR114(5)(e) allowed.

(2) Finding of breach of LR114(5)(e) set aside.

(3) Penalty of a disqualification of the Appellant’s licence for 3 years in relation
to breach of LR114(5)(e) set aside.

(4) Appeals in relation to penalties imposed for breaches of AR52 and AR229(h)
to be heard as soon as reasonably possible

Giddy Up :beer:



 

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Aug-23, 07:31 PM Reply #71 »
https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/

Appeal of trainer G Brown against a fine of $5K when his horse weighed in light and was disqualified Appeal upheld fined $2500.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Oct-05, 07:52 PM Reply #72 »
Small time trainer Mark Gwynne outed for 22 months got a discount of 25% .....18 months for positive .......and 4 months of which for fibbing to stewards ... while I feel some sympathy for him ..... he claimed he was unaware of prohibited use of anabolic steroids ... he is presumed to know the law....  the 4 months for AR 232 makes the Vic decision on the party people  giving false and or misleading evidence small beer.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Gwynne-M-1-october-2021-Reasons-for-Decisions.pdf


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Oct-15, 08:37 AM Reply #73 »
Racing Appeals Panel decision on trainer John McLachlin started a horse which exhibited soreness and resulted in catastrophic injury and serious but not fatal injuries to the rider .
9 months disqualification

Resolution 9.
The Panel accepts that the appellant is a good horse person, who cares about the health and well-being of horses that come within his care. We accept he in no way intended to expose Aidydoodee to the risk of injury, much less catastrophic injury. We accept he did not intend to place Ms. Morris in jeopardy. We accept he at least took some steps to have the horse examined by a vet, and that he is remorseful for the loss of the horse, and for the injuries suffered by Ms. Morris. We are also fully aware that any disqualification of a licensed person invariably has at least a financial impact upon them. We accept that will be relatively severe for the appellant given racing is how he makes a living, and that the events that have led to this appeal, and any disqualification imposed, will have an impact on his mental well-being.

 10. None of the above matters however make what occurred here other than a profoundly serious breach of AR229(1)(a). There is no rational finding open to the Panel on the evidence other than to find that Aidydoodee was lame at least from Monday 26 July. It was obviously lame. It obviously required not just a “cursory” veterinary examination, but a thorough one in order that a diagnosis be made of the horse’s abnormal or asymmetrical gate – a problem well highlighted by the colloquial terms used to describe its action such a “scratchy”, “short,” “not quite right” etc. Further veterinary examination of this horse was obviously required before it should have  8  been entered into the jump out it was on 31 July. In light of these matters, it can be seen that the appellant was well advised to change his plea.

 11. By not having the horse thoroughly examined, even though the appellant may not have intended it, both horse and rider were placed at risk. That risk unfortunately materialized – the horse fractured its leg; the rider suffered significant injuries. The risk materialized in the worst possible way for the horse. As for Ms. Morris, while her injuries are significant, there is some aspect of luck involved that a tragedy was avoided. Whatever damage could be said to be done to the image and “social license” of racing from what did occur, the damage done to racing could have been calamitous should Ms. Morris’s outcome have been worse. Racing already comes with sufficient inherent dangers without needing those dangers magnified in the manner they were here. Further, there is no rational finding open to the Panel than one that reflects the expert evidence before us – the cause of the horse’s leg fracture here cannot be definitively proven, but was far more likely than not to be directly related to the lameness it had shown at least since Monday 26 July. That is the inescapable likelihood based on the evidence of Dr Koenig.

 12. The evidence before the Panel is that the appellant is a good person, and a good and caring horse person. He does not cease to be so because of the breach of the rule here. His conduct bore no intent to harm, and certainly no malice. It was however careless and “improper” within the meaning of the rule, as is reflected by his plea of guilty. Taking all matters into account, but in particular the need for penalties to be protective of the sport, we do not accept the submission that the penalty imposed by the Stewards in this matter should be reduced, other than to reflect that a plea of guilty has now been made. We therefore will discount the 12-month disqualification imposed by the Stewards by 20% to reflect the change in plea, but would otherwise dismiss the penalty appeal.

 13. The Panel’s orders are as follows:
 1. Leave granted to the appellant to withdraw his appeal against the finding of breach of AR229(1)(a).
2. Leave granted to the appellant to enter a plea of guilty to breach of AR229(1)(a).
 3. Finding of breach of AR229(1)(a) confirmed.
 4. Base  penalty  of  a 12disqualification  confirmed,  with  that  penalty  reduced month by  20%  to  reflect  the  appellant’s  plea  of  guilty,  with  the  severity  of  penalty  appeal 5. 6. otherwise  dismissed. In  lieu  of  a 12month disqualification,  the  appellant  is  disqualified  for  9  months and  two  weeks.  The  stay  is  dissolved,  and  that 7  October  2021,  and  expires  on  21  July  2022. Appeal  deposit  forfeited.


Giddy Up :beer:




Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2021-Nov-17, 09:16 PM Reply #74 »
Updating decisions of the Appeals Panel.

https://www.racingnsw.com.au/appeals/


Giddy Up :no1
:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap