Charlie Bennett, Appeal 1.

On 6 August 2020 the independent Judicial Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) at a remote hearing considered the appeal of Charlie Bennett, a licensed jockey, against the decision of the Local Stewards at Lingfield on 31 July 2020 that in his riding of MANDARIN DUCK in The Betway Median Auction Stakes (Class 5) (Division I) he was guilty of careless riding and suspended for four days.

2. Mr Bennett attended the hearing online and was represented by Rory Mac Neice. Lyn Williams presented the case on behalf of the BHA, which contended the decision of the Lingfield Stewards should be upheld.

3. The principal evidence presented to the Panel was video recordings from various angles of the early stages of the race where the incident giving rise to the finding of careless riding occurred. There was also the transcript of the enquiry held after the race by the Local Stewards. Liam Keniry, the rider of TORNADIC, which was involved in the incident, and Mr Bennett gave verbal evidence to the Panel.

4. “Careless riding” is defined in the Rules in these terms: “a rider is guilty of careless riding if he fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference by inattention or misjudgement” The incident

5. It happened near the end of the first furlong of the 7 furlong race. Mr Bennett on MANDARIN DUCK was drawn in stall 8 towards the outside. He broke well and was briefly with the leading group. But his mount could not go their pace so he decided to ‘slot him in’ just behind the leaders. He appeared to aim for a gap slightly to his left just behind NIBRAS SILK (from stall 6). As he got close to the gap Mr Keniry on TORNADIC, who had started slowly from stall 10, came up on his inside. Whether or not there was contact between MANADARIN DUCK and TORNADIC is difficult to discern from the video as both horses were behind and partially obscured by NIBRAS SILK. What is apparent is that both horses came close together, and then TORNADIC swerved to its left bumping BEAUTIFUL CROWN. That may have been the result of a bump between MANDARIN DUCK and TORNADIC or of Mr Keniry pulling his horse to the left to avoid a collision with MANDARIN DUCK or a combination of both. The BHA case

6. Mr Bennett should have seen or noticed TORNADIC coming up on his left and kept straight instead of continuing leftwards towards the gap. Mr Bennett’s case

7. Mr Mac Neice placed emphasis on what was shown by the side-on camera: that fractions of a second before contact between MANDARIN DUCK and TORNADIC there was at least a length between the two horses. There must have been a sudden spurt of acceleration by TORNADIC which brought it partially alongside MANDARIN DUCK. Mr Bennett had looked to his left on two occasions before angling for the gap and it appeared a safe manoeuvre. It was not foreseeable that TORNADIC would suddenly be an obstruction. Mr Bennett was not at fault. Discussion and conclusion

8. There can be no dispute that there was interference. The issue is what was the cause. The initial impression conveyed by the head-on camera is that Mr Bennett on MANDARIN DUCK headed for a gap to his left without being aware that Mr Keniry on TORNADIC was close by on his left and going in the same direction. But that camera is taking pictures at long range and is not an accurate guide as to the space and distances between horses. We accept Mr Mac Neice’s interpretation of what is shown by the side-on camera that there was at least a length between MANDARIN DUCK and TORNADIC fractions of a second before they became very close and possibly bumped together. We must then take into account Mr Keniry’s evidence to the Local stewards and the Panel, that he started slowly, gave his horse a couple of slaps, then his horse got keen. He said his horse was “locked on” and started pulling . . . “the more I pulled the keener the horse was getting. I was going to catch Charlie’s [Bennett] heals or someone else’s heels” (quote from Local Stewards’ enquiry). It seems to us that momentarily the horse was out of control, perhaps not unusual when it is, as it was in this case, the horse’s first run. In the circumstances we do not consider that Mr Bennett can be justifiably blamed for not seeing that TORNADIC, at least a length behind him, was suddenly accelerating towards the gap to which his horse was heading. He was not inattentive nor guilty of misjudgement. In short the interference was not caused by Mr Bennett’s careless riding.

9. The appeal will be allowed. Mr Bennett’s deposit will be returned.

William Buick, Appeal 1.

On 6 August 2020 the independent Judicial Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) at a remote hearing considered the appeal of William Buick, a licensed jockey, against the decision of the of the Local Stewards at Goodwood on 31 July 2020 that Mr Buick when riding ZAMAANI (IRE) in The New Unibet Instant Roulette Nursery Handicap Stakes (Class 2) was guilty of careless riding and should be suspended for two days.

2. Mr Buick was represented by Rory Mac Neice. Lyn Williams presented the case on behalf of the BHA which was that the decision of the Goodwood Stewards should be upheld.

3. The finding of the Goodwood Stewards was that interference occurred shortly after the start caused by Mr Buick’s careless riding of ZAMAANI (IRE) by allowing his mount to drift left-handed towards the rail when insufficiently clear causing PORFIN (IRE) ridden by Adrian McCarthy to be hampered and carried onto ROOSTER ridden by P J McDonald.

4. The evidence put before the Panel included two videos of the early stages of the race and the transcript of the enquiry held by the Goodwood Stewards after the race attended by the jockeys, Mr Buick, Mr McCarthy and Mr McDonald. Mr McCarthy attended the Appeal hearing remotely from his parked car and gave evidence.

5. First the videos were shown. Mr Buick on ZAMAANI (IRE) was drawn in Stall 4, Mr McCarthy on PORFIN (IRE) in Stall 5 (to the left of Mr Buick and closer to the rail) and Mr McDonald on ROOSTER in Stall 6. Shortly after the stalls opened Mr Buick headed left towards the rail passing in front of Mr McCarthy on PORFIN (IRE). It could be seen that both PORFIN (IRE) and ROOSTER to his left were squeezed for room.

6. After the videos were seen Mr McCarthy gave evidence. He said that when the stalls opened his horse went to the left as did Mr Buick’s ZAMAANI (IRE). ZAMAANI (IRE) passed in front of him but was clear of him at the time. He was definitely not 1½ lengths in front but there was no interference with his mount.

7. After Mr McCarthy had given this evidence, Mr Mac Neice told the Panel that he was not asking Mr Buick to give evidence or calling any other witness as in the face of Mr McCarthy’s statement that there was no interference with his mount the appeal must succeed. Mr Mac Neice argued that a necessary pre-condition of a finding of careless riding is that there was interference. The definition of careless riding required an initial finding of interference. The best evidence of whether or not there was interference must be that of the alleged sufferer of the interference, in this case Mr McCarthy, the rider of PORFIN (IRE). Mr Mac Neice pointed out that Mr McCarthy was called as a witness by Mr Williams on behalf of the BHA. Discussion and conclusions

8. The Panel to a large extent accepts these points made by Mr Mac Neice. What they cannot accept is that the evidence of the alleged ‘sufferer’ is conclusive on the issue whether or not there has been interference. That evidence must be weighed against such other evidence as there is on the issue of interference, which will usually be the video evidence. There are occasions when a jockey maintains that he has been deprived of the chance of winning by another horse’s interference and the camera evidence is that there was no such interference. This is the contrary position where the jockey is convinced that his mount did not suffer interference. A finding by Local Stewards or the Judicial Panel that there was interference does not necessarily imply that the jockey is not telling the truth. He may not have been aware that his mount had momentarily become unbalanced or moved off its line by the actions of another horse alongside. This is more likely to occur when the interference is slight and occurs soon after the start when the horse is trying to find its stride.

9. The Panel is satisfied by the camera evidence that there was interference in this instance caused by Mr Buick shortly after the start directing his mount leftwards towards the rail. Within about 100 yards ZAMAANI (IRE) had moved at least a stall’s length closer to the rail significantly reducing the space for those horses on its left which included PORFIN (IRE) and ROOSTER. Whether or not there was actual contact between ZAMAANI (IRE) and PORFIN (IRE) in our view the latter was momentarily unbalanced and moved to its left hindering ROOSTER. The fact that ZAMAANI (IRE) was “definitely not 1½ lengths” in front of PORFIN (IRE) makes it more likely that Mr Buick’s manoeuvre affected PORFIN (IRE). We have also noted Mr McDonald’s description in the Steward’s enquiry of what happened to him: “Adrian’s [McCarthy] horse has given me a bit of a hard time on my right-hand side, but honestly I did not think anything bad had happened . . . .” That would seem to be a non-technical description of minor interference. And the root cause was Mr Buick’s riding of ZAMAANI (IRE).

10. Accordingly we find Mr Buick was guilty of careless riding by causing interference by inattention or misjudgement and we dismiss his appeal.

11. Mr Mac Neice submitted that the penalty of two days suspension was too severe and inappropriate in view of the minimum degree of interference. He argued that there should be no more than a caution. The Panel considered that a caution was not an appropriate penalty for a jockey at Mr Buick’s level and with his experience. The penalty of two days suspension was fair and proportionate. However, the appeal was sufficiently meritorious to warrant the return of the deposit.

Gary Moore

1. On 6 August 2020 the independent Judicial Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held a remote enquiry into whether Gary Moore, a licensed trainer, was in breach of Rule (J)24 of the Rules of Racing by failing to observe at Goodwood racecourse on 28 July 2020 the COVID-19 requirements issued by the BHA.

2. Mr Moore attended the enquiry on-line and unrepresented. Andrew Howell presented the case on behalf of the BHA.

3. It is necessary to mention the sparse and inadequate details given to Mr Moore of his alleged misconduct prior to the hearing: i. By letter dated 1 August 2020 the BHA informed Mr Moore that he was “in breach of (J)24 in that you breached the COVID-19 Requirements as published by the BHA”. ii. Rule (J)24 (a copy of which accompanied the letter) contains 6 sub-rules. None were identified as applicable to Mr Moore’s conduct. iii. The COVID-19 requirements are set out in a full page document (again enclosed with the letter) and includes 9 mandatory actions required of anyone permitted to enter a Racecourse. None were identified as requirements not complied with by Mr Moore. iv. The letter of 1 August 2020 was also accompanied by a written statement of Christopher Watts, Head of Integrity at BHA, setting out what had been observed as regards Mr Moore’s movements and actions by Security Officers at Goodwood. The statement was largely hearsay and lacked detail.

4. It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that a person charged with misconduct should be informed precisely what he is alleged to have done and the law, Rules or regulations he has thereby contravened. It should not be left to the accused person to work this out from broad references to Rules and factual hearsay statements lacking detail.

5. It was the Panel’s view that these requirements were not fulfilled in this case, and that Mr Moore was entitled to have the hearing adjourned so that he could be properly informed of the BHA case, and prepare his answers accordingly. This was explained to Mr Moore. He was adamant that he wanted the matter to be dealt with immediately and not postponed or adjourned. Accordingly the enquiry proceeded.

6. The evidence that Mr Howell relied upon was contained in the written statement of Mr Watts. He states (in paragraph 7) that he was appointed as the Social Distancing Officer (SDO) for the five days of Glorious Goodwood from 28 July to 1 August 2020. On 30 July he had regular contact with Security Supervisor, Mr Wayne Slade, and Security Officers, Mr Brad Bennett and Mr Ray Mcleod who had told him that they had encountered repeated problems with Mr Moore entering into the Owner’s zone. No details are given. In paragraph 8, Mr Watts recounts that Mr Bennett told him that he had to ask Mr Moore to leave the Owner’s zone on two occasions, once when he was on the steps of the March grandstand, and once when “he was trying to enter the Owners zone” from the main racecourse thoroughfare. In paragraph 9 Mr Watts reports what he was told by Mr Slade: that he had to ask Mr Moore to leave the Owners zone on three occasions, once in the Owners zone walkway near to the Champagne lawn, once when he was trying to access the Owners zone from the horse walk and once when trying to enter the Owners zone from the main racecourse thoroughfare. No times are given for any of these occasions. Finally, in paragraph 10 Mr Watts asserts that after the 4.45 race he saw Mr Moore with two people in the Owners zone, who then walked briskly off in the direction of Oak Tree Lawn where he was stopped by Security staff and escorted off the racecourse.

7. Mr Moore completed a Charge Response Form in which he admitted that he had watched a race from the March grandstand but he was unaware that he was not meant to be there, and that after the 4.55 race he walked towards an exit that was not an exit for trainers. On August 5 Mr Moore wrote and sent to the BHA a longer statement which was obviously intended as a response to Mr Watts’s statement. He read it to the Panel and confirmed its truth. In this statement Mr Moore: Repeated his admission that he had watched a race from the March grandstand – “I was in the wrong place but it was not intentional to not follow the rules”. Responded that Mr Bennett did not have to stop him entering the Owners zone. He simply asked if it was possible to have a drink somewhere with the owners. Asserted he was not told to leave the Owners zone on three occasions. He was walking where he usually did and thought he could. It was confusing as to which side of the ropes he should be. He was advised and did what he was told. He had no idea who Mr Slade is. Stated that after the 4.45 race he walked towards the exit close to the walkway along which the runners proceed to the unsaddling area. He wanted to see his horse walk by and then leave. He did not realise it was not an exit he could use.

8. It seems to us that the differences in the accounts of Mr Watts and Mr Moore essentially relate to the tone and context of Mr Moore’s encounters with Mr Watts and his Security Officers. They maintain that Mr Moore “had to be removed” from the Owners Zone, implying that some kind of peremptory order was made. Mr Moore suggests that he was merely advised he was in the wrong place, or on the wrong side of the rope, advice that he readily accepted and acted upon. Mr Howell invites us to find that during that afternoon Mr Moore was deliberately and repeatedly flouting the rules as to where he could or could not be. We do not consider we can do so in the absence of any direct evidence from the Security Officers concerned, principally Mr Bennett and Mr Slade. However, there is essentially undisputed evidence that on at least two occasions in that afternoon of 30 July 2020 Mr Moore was in the Owner’s zone, and even if it was unintentional, Mr Moore should have realised that he was in an area prohibited to him.

9. Thus we find that Mr Moore was in breach of (J)24.4 in failing to comply with a requirement imposed on him by the BHA, the requirements being those set out in 7) and 8) of BHA COVID-19 Requirements.*

10. Mr Howell on behalf of the BHA asked us to impose a penalty of exclusion from racecourses for a period of three months. He submitted that the object of such a penalty would not be punitive but to maintain safety at racecourses where Mr Moore might otherwise be in attendance. We doubt whether we have any power to impose an exclusion order, albeit limited to racecourse attendance, in the absence of a finding of a breach of (J)24.6 (misleading or attempting to mislead the BHA or one of its employees or BHA officials), and there is no evidence to support such a finding. In any event such an exclusion order would deprive the trainer of one of the principal occasions when he can meet his owners and be a serious hindrance in the running of his business. We consider a fine at the entry point level of £750 would be a fair and proportionate penalty and an effective encouragement to Mr Moore (and no doubt other trainers) to observe the COVID-19 requirements when attending the races. *COVID-19 Requirements: "7) Follow all signage and obey the instructions of staff and officials who are enforcing social distancing and other protocols. 8) Avoid areas of the racecourse unrelated to your role.”

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the Appeals and Enquiry was: Patrick Milmo QC (Chair), David Adam and Steve Winfield.

2. Due to the current situation and resulting difficulties arising from the corona virus, temporary changes have been made to how the Judicial Panel operates. Initial changes can be seen in a statement here issued on 1 April, with a further operational update issued on 1 June here.

3. Videos of the incidents referred to in the two appeals are available to view via the individual results pages of the Judicial Panel microsite. Please note, the BHA Judicial Panel is an independent body which encompasses the Disciplinary Panel, Appeal Board and Licensing Committee. It receives administrative support from the BHA via the Judicial Panel Secretary.