Billy Jacobson fine reduced

0
Billy Jacobson fine reduced

APPEAL : JOCKEY B JACOBSON

The National Horseracing Authority confirms that an Appeal was held in Johannesburg on 29 May 2019, against the finding and the penalty relating to the contravention of Rule 72.1.25 and against the severity of the penalty in respect of the contravention of Rule 72.1.18, by an Inquiry Board on 15 April 2019.

BACKGROUND:

At an inquiry held in Durban on 15 April 2019, Jockey Billy Jacobson was charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.18 in that as a licensed jockey, whilst at the Summerveld Training Centre on 28 March 2019, he swore at licensed officials, namely Messrs B Ngcobo, R Jeewanlall, D Anderson and T Nhlapo. In addition, Jockey Jacobson was charged with a contravention of Rule 72.1.25 in that he behaved in an improper manner by walking towards Mr B Ngcobo, the Starter, in an aggressive manner.

Jockey Jacobson pleaded guilty to the contravention of Rule 72.1.18 and pleaded not guilty to the contravention of Rule 72.1.25.

The Inquiry Board having considered the particulars of these incidents as well as the mitigating factors presented, imposed a penalty in the form of a fine in the sum of R20 000, R10 000 of which was suspended for a period of 2 years on condition that Jockey Jacobson was not found guilty of a contravention of any of the conduct related Rules during this period.

Jockey Jacobson was afforded a right of Appeal against the finding and the penalty relating to the contravention of Rule 72.1.25 and against the severity of the penalty in respect of the contravention of Rule 72.1.18.

Jockey Jacobson did not appear at the Appeal, which proceeded in his absence in accordance with Rule 85.14.

The Appeal Board found as follows:

Rule 72.1.18

In respect of the First Charge, to which Jockey Jacobson pleaded guilty, the Appeal Board considered the remarks made to the Licensed Officials to be deeply offensive on a personal level.

The Appeal Board took into account that Jockey Jacobson pleaded guilty to the charge, he has a clean record and also considered that he is in an extremely dire financial position and that this fact had not been given sufficient weight by the Inquiry Board when coming to a decision regarding the imposition of a penalty. The Appeal Board was of the view that the aforesaid factors are extremely important in these circumstances and in the view of the Appeal Board, the Inquiry Board misdirected itself by not attaching sufficient weight to the mitigating factors.

Accordingly, in respect of the First Charge, the Appeal Board intervened and imposed a fresh sentence as follows: the fine was reduced from the amount of R16000 to R12000 of which R8000 is suspended for a period of twelve months, provided that Jockey Jacobson is not found guilty of contravening similar or related conduct Rules during that period.

Rule 72.1.2

In respect of the Second Charge preferred against Mr Jacobson, that being a contravention of Rule 72.1.25, the Appeal Board found that Jockey Jacobson had indeed conducted himself in an improper manner by approaching Mr Ngcobo in an aggressive manner.

Accordingly, Jockey Jacobson’s appeal against the finding of guilty in terms of the Second Charge under Rule 72.1.25 was dismissed.

For the purposes of the Second Charge, the Appeal Board took into account that Jockey Jacobson has a clean record in regard to Rule 72.1.25. The Appeal Board also took into account similar cases of this nature, as presented by Jockey Jacobson.

The Appeal Board was of the view that Jockey Jacobson’s financial factors are extremely important in these circumstances and in the view of the Appeal Board, the Inquiry Board misdirected itself by not attaching sufficient weight to the mitigating factors and the relevant similar cases.

Accordingly, in respect of the Second Charge the Appeal Board intervened as follows: the fine was retained in an amount of R4000, however the fine was fully suspended for a period of twelve months, provided that Jockey Jacobson is not found guilty of contravening similar or related conduct Rules during that period.

In view of the Appeal Board, Mr Jacobson’s appeal has been substantially successful and the appeal fee in terms of Rule 85.5.8 should be refunded.

Views: 438

Comments are closed.