Goldsbury v QRIC[2018] QCAT 309

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   Ms Rebecca Goldsbury is an apprentice jockey in her fourth and final year as an apprentice. She holds a licence to race in mid-week meetings in the metropolitan area. At the date of the charge she was entitled to, and claimed, 1.5kg allowance as an apprentice.
2. [2]
   On 2 December 2017 Ms Goldsbury rode Occhilupo, a thoroughbred racehorse, in Race 2 at Clifford Park Racecourse, Toowoomba, a Class 1 event over 1200m. Occhilupo was the top-weight in the race at 59.0kg, started second favourite at $3.60, and commenced from barrier 4.
3. [3]
   Occhilupo is a four-year-old stallion and is, as apparent from the testimony, a reasonably large horse. It was his first race start in 27 weeks.
4. [4]
   This ride was the first race ride by Ms Goldsbury following an earlier one-month suspension imposed on her by race stewards under the Australian Rules of Racing (ARR), ARR 135(b), the same rule under which she was charged and concerns this present appeal.
5. [5]
   Ms Goldsbury rides in Australia under Mr Benjamin Currie, a registered trainer, as her master, having started her race-riding career in New Zealand. The issue of her training and support as an apprentice jockey in Australia was an issue raised by her Counsel and is addressed further below.
6. [6]
   While she is still an apprentice, Ms Goldsbury in her submission to the Tribunal dated 8 March 2018 claims she has had 733 race day rides including 57 winners in New Zealand, and 140 race day rides and 21 winners in Australia^[1].
7. [7]
   Occhilupo finished third in the race, a nose behind the second-placed horse. The winner finished a length ahead of the second placegetter.
8. [8]
   After the conclusion of the race the stewards conducted an inquiry into the running of Occhilupo. An initial inquiry was held on the race day, 2 December 2017, which was adjourned without making a decision on the charges against Ms Goldsbury, to a further hearing on 13 December 2017.
9. [9]
   The charge alleged against Ms Goldsbury by the stewards was in two parts, as follows^[2]:

… at a point passing the 600 metres until the 350 metre mark you failed to apply sufficient pressure to improve into the race and in fact on two occasions you restrained your horse for no apparent reason when there was ample opportunity for you to improve into the race; and

… in the early stage of the home straight … you showed insufficient vigour and there was room for you to improve your horse into the race to give it the best possible chance to finish in the best possible place.

10. [10]
    These charges allege a breach of ARR 135(b), which says:

The rider of every horse shall take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his or her horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.

11. [11]
    At the resumed stewards’ hearing on 13 December 2017 the stewards found the charge proven and imposed a suspension of two months on Ms Goldsbury, taking effect from midnight 16 December 2017 until midnight 16 February 2018.
12. [12]
    The suspension imposed by the stewards on Ms Goldsbury has not yet been served by Ms Goldsbury pending the outcome of all her appeal avenues, including her appeal to this Tribunal.
13. [13]
    Ms Goldsbury sought and obtained an Internal Review Decision of the stewards’ decision, conducted by Mr Kane Ashby, Internal Adjudicator, Queensland Racing Integrity Commission, which was delivered on 10 January 2018. Mr Ashby affirmed the penalty imposed by the stewards. In his decision he said:^[3]

… the Applicant [Ms Goldsbury] failed to ride with sufficient purpose or vigour between the 550m mark and the 250m mark when clearly opportunity existed. The reviewer [Mr Ashbury] is comfortably satisfied … the Applicant’s actions are blameworthy to the extent that that [they] prevented OCCHILUPO from being given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place in the field.

14. [14]
    In the relevant portion of his decision, Mr Ashby mentions that he finds that part of the charge concerning Ms Goldsbury’s ride between approximately 600m and 250m proven.^[4] He affirms the penalty based on this conclusion. It is reasonable to conclude that, since he did not affirm the second part of the charge preferred by the stewards, being that relating to her ride in the early stages of the home straight, he was not satisfied of her blameworthiness in this respect. I therefore conclude that the Internal Review Decision has not upheld that portion of the stewards’ decision and that this part of the charge is no longer in issue. For this reason, and for reasons of fairness, this Tribunal will consider only that portion of Ms Goldsbury’s ride between the 600m and 250m marks.

What is the Relevant Law?

15. [15]
    Munce’s case,^[5] an unreported decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales, said that the task of administering ARR 135(b) is not always easy and that the Rule is not designed to punish a jockey unless the conduct of the jockey falls below the objective judgment reasonably expected of a jockey in the position of the person charged in the particular race. The chairman of that Tribunal said:

The task of administering the rule is not always easy. One must keep it clearly in mind that on its true interpretation it is not designed to punish a jockey unless on the whole of the evidence in the case the tribunal [in] considering a charge under the rule is comfortably satisfied that the person charged was guilty of conduct that in all the relevant circumstances fell below the level of objective judgment reasonably to be expected of a jockey in the position of the person charged in relation to the particular race.

16. [16]
    In the matter of Damian Browne,^[6] the former Queensland Racing Disciplinary Board held that an objective assessment of a jockey’s ride is required, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the race and, in particular, the quality of the jockey’s ride having regard to the facts and circumstances of the race. Browne’s case considered earlier decisions involving a breach of ARR 135(b) and explained the principles from those cases by holding:

1. (1)
   It is the quality of the ride in the circumstances of the particular race which has to be judged.
2. (2)
   That judgement must be based on an objective assessment of the jockey’s ride in [the] particular race.
3. (3)
   A mere error of judgement by a jockey is not a sufficient basis for an adverse finding that [Rule 135(b)] has been breached.
4. (4)
   The rider’s conduct must be culpable in the sense that, objectively judged, it is found to be blameworthy.

17. [17]
    These principles have been applied by numerous bodies throughout Australia and are sufficiently settled as being the relevant principles that should be applied in this case.

What is the role of the Tribunal?

18. [18]
    The role of the Tribunal in cases such as this has been established by a series of cases of this Tribunal and elsewhere, explained by Member Browne of this Tribunal,^[7] and set out in the following paragraphs (and I respectfully recite from her decisions).
19. [19]
    The Tribunal on review stands in the shoes of the respondent decision-maker to arrive at the correct and preferable decision.^[8] The Tribunal must decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. It is not necessary to establish any error in either the process or the reasoning that led to the decision and there is no presumption that the reviewable decision was correct.^[9]
20. [20]
    The Tribunal on review must be satisfied to the required civil standard on the balance of probabilities, that the charge or allegation as particularised is proven. In Briginshaw’s case, commonly referred to as the ‘Briginshaw principle’,^[10] Dixon J (as he then was) said that the allegation must be made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal and should not be ‘produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences’. The relevant extract from Briginshaw’s case is as follows:

The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any fact, the tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality. No doubt an opinion that a state of facts exists may be held according to indefinite gradations of certainty; and this has led to attempts to define exactly the certainty required by the law for various purposes… it is enough that that affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters "reasonable satisfaction" should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences…

21. [21]
    In conducting a proceeding, the Tribunal on review is not bound by the rules of evidence,^[11] but must observe the rules of natural justice and, amongst other things, ‘ensure, so far as is practicable, all relevant material is disclosed to the tribunal to enable it to decide the proceeding with all the relevant facts.’^[12]
22. [22]
    In this case the role of the Tribunal is to decide whether Ms Goldsbury has breached ARR 135(b).
23. [23]
    In making this decision the Tribunal will consider whether Ms Goldsbury took all reasonable and permissible measures between the 600m and 250m marks in the race to ensure that her horse was given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.

The Running of the Race

24. [24]
    The Respondent, QRIC, tendered video recordings of the entire running of the race, with some portions of the race being shown from more than one angle. These recordings were played at the hearing and no party objected to their being tendered or played.
25. [25]
    Occhilupo started fourth from the rails in barrier number 9 (barrier position 4, the first five barrier stalls being unused). Moderately slow from the start, Occhilupo was bumped twice within the first 50m by the horse emerging from barrier number 8. After about 50m the horse from barrier number 10 raced close in front across the path of Occhilupo but without causing evident interference.
26. [26]
    From about 1000m until well into the first turn Occhilupo appeared unsettled and can be seen throwing his head around and challenging his jockey for control. By the end of the turn into the back straight Occhilupo has settled into stride at the rear of the field next to the fence.
27. [27]
    Even allowing that Occhilupo kept up with the field after 1000m, the race commentator made the following call at the 800m mark:^[13]

… a length and a half away to Occhilupo [last at that point] who is racing ungenerously… and eight lengths off the pacesetter which is Wake Up Sailor…

28. [28]
    Occhilupo maintained his position last in the field up to the 600m mark and, while continuing to keep in touch with the field, scarcely improved his position until about 300m. From there, maybe closer to 250m, Occhilupo appeared to run true and finished strongly for third place.
29. [29]
    From the video recording it can be seen that at about 650m Occhilupo changed his gait from left-front-leg leading to right-front-leg leading. From the video recording it is not easy to see where the left-leg-leading gait started, but he did not race this way at the start of the race.
30. [30]
    At 600m, about the start of the home turn, Occhilupo was on the rails and 1½ lengths behind the horse ahead of him (which was also on the rails), with two horses wider. Occhilupo would have to have been held back and taken 4-wide on the bend to improve its position, or remain near the rear and wait for an opening as the field entered the straight. The jockey appears to have chosen the latter course.
31. [31]
    Between 600m and 250m the horse can be seen in the race video variously pulling his head to the right side (mainly), moving his head from side to side, and running with his mouth open.
32. [32]
    Once an opening appeared, at about 250m, the jockey encouraged the horse with whip and hands-and-heels, and Occhilupo, still on the right leg, appeared ready to race and finished strongly.

The Track

33. [33]
    Toowoomba racecourse has a track circumference of 1750 metres and a home straight of 360 metres.
34. [34]
    The racing club describes the course as ‘… very circular and has tight turns, a big advantage to be on the fence in running. Barrier advantages are of least important [sic] at 1300 metres and beyond.’^[14]
35. [35]
    It was uncontentious that the track has a climb, quite steep in parts, from around 1100m to at least the 600m mark or, possibly, the beginning of the home turn. The extent of the rise and the point at which the rise ends was not clear from the evidence, but plays no significant part in the decision here.
36. [36]
    The condition of the track on the day of the race was ‘Good’.

Factors to Consider

37. [37]
    In its final submissions QRIC submitted that Ms Goldsbury’s ride must be objectively assessed against many aspects of the evidence, including the quality of the ride, the context of the race and Ms Goldsbury’s experience and seniority as a metropolitan apprentice.^[15] This appears to be a fair approach to assessing the quality of her ride in this case.
38. [38]
    QRIC therefore refers to the need to objectively assess Ms Goldsbury’s ride against two specific factors:

    1. (a)
       The quality of the ride; and
    2. (b)
       Her experience and seniority as a metropolitan apprentice.
39. [39]
    QRIC also refers in its submission to the need to assess objectively the jockey’s ride against many aspects of the evidence. While the aspects of a race that may need to be considered will never be closed, they will include factors that QRIC describes compendiously as ‘… the context of the race…’, which could include, for example, any of the following:

    1. (a)
       The degree, occasion or duration of any offence alleged against a jockey (in this case a lack of vigour or purpose);
    2. (b)
       The riding instructions given to the jockey;
    3. (c)
       The length of the race: and whether the horse is suited to the distance;
    4. (d)
       The class of the field: and whether the horse is in appropriate company;
    5. (e)
       The race type: such as whether weight for age, welter, or conditions on starters by age, gender, or form;
    6. (f)
       The formation of the track: whether it be turf or sand, or whether it has relatively steep or sloping sections;
    7. (g)
       The layout of the track: whether it may have tight or long corners, short straights, or allow little distance after a race start before bends are encountered;
    8. (h)
       The condition of the track on the day and whether there have been adjustments to the course proper;
    9. (i)
       The weather conditions at the time of the race: for example wind, rain or fog;
    10. (j)
        Any interference that may have occurred to any horse during the running of the race that may affect the rider and horse in question;
    11. (k)
        Any problems with the horse on the day of the race, at the barrier, or during the race;
    12. (l)
        The failure or compromise of any gear used during the race;
    13. (m)
        The tractability, nature and size of the horse;
    14. (n)
        The race experience of the horse: which could include racing conditions of the horse in terms of gear such as blinkers or winkers, or type of bit, or selection of racing shoes; and
    15. (o)
        Whether a horse is returning after a spell.
40. [40]
    Many of these factors were raised by the parties in their evidence and in their submissions and warrant consideration.

The Applicant’s Evidence

41. [41]
    Ms Goldsbury gave evidence in support of her appeal and was cross-examined by QRIC.
42. [42]
    A number of issues were raised during Ms Goldsbury’s evidence in support of her appeal and reinforced in the final submissions on her behalf. These issues are listed here and considered with the Respondent’s evidence below:

    1. (a)
       Her relative inexperience as an apprentice;
    2. (b)
       Her return to race riding, resuming after a month’s suspension;
    3. (c)
       Her difficulty in wasting to make her race weight;
    4. (d)
       The lack of training and mentoring she had obtained as an apprentice in Australia, having come from New Zealand;
    5. (e)
       Her lack of experience with Occhilupo, this being her first ride on him for a race, trial, or jump out (although she had ridden him trackwork);
    6. (f)
       Occhilupo is a stallion, a large horse, strong, and difficult to control;
    7. (g)
       Occhilupo is not suited to sprint races, and has performed better later over longer distances;
    8. (h)
       Occhilupo was bumped at the start of the race;
    9. (i)
       Occhilupo had been subject to several gear changes in order to find the best gear in which he should race;
    10. (j)
        Occhilupo found the ascending grade of the racecourse at the 1100-600m (approximately) section challenging;
    11. (k)
        Occhilupo may have pulled up ‘scratchy’ because of an undiagnosed problem;
    12. (l)
        Occhilupo was resuming racing in its first start after a 27 week break; and
    13. (m)
        Occhilupo was racing ‘on the wrong leg’.
43. [43]
    Ms Goldsbury’s Counsel also suggested the following points in Ms Goldsbury’s favour:

    1. (a)
       The stewards would have had no concern had Occhilupo been placed second (rather than third) and, in fact, the margin in this case was a nose – so the charge is borderline;
    2. (b)
       The stewards who officiated at the race meeting assessed a relatively low level of culpability on the part of Ms Goldsbury; and
    3. (c)
       Ms Goldsbury, originally from New Zealand, had received no training or support during the period she has been an apprentice jockey while residing and riding in Australia.

The Respondent’s Evidence

44. [44]
    The Respondent’s concern with Ms Goldsbury’s ride is summarised in its final submission, in particular:^[16]

The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s actions in not riding with sufficient purpose or vigour, when ample opportunity existed, to improve her position at such a vital stage of the race [between 550m and 250m], was more than a mere error of judgement. The Respondent further submits the opportunity to improve her position was not a ‘split second’ decision by any means, and finds it presented for an extended period of time between the 550 metre mark and until the 250 metre mark.

45. [45]
    The evidence-in-chief for the Respondent, QRIC, was given by Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr Neil Boyle, who was chairman of the panel of stewards on the race day.
46. [46]
    Mr Boyle is a former jockey and horse trainer with over 30 years’ experience in the racing industry including almost six years' as a race steward. Mr Boyle is a credible witness.
47. [47]
    Mr Boyle expressed his opinion that between 600m and 250m Occhilupo was pulling his head to the right in response to Ms Goldsbury pulling on the right rein, effectively restraining the horse when there was no reason to do so.
48. [48]
    In this regard Mr Boyle’s relevant testimony is:

So that – that played severely in the back of our minds that she was claiming that the horse was hanging, but the video doesn’t support the horse hanging at all. And, being an ex-jockey, I can assure you if the horse was hanging, it would have been probably out a little bit further. If you can – say – say, there, she’s probably the closest of those horses on the inside line to the rail. (Transcript, page 1.53)

…

She’s saying the horse is wanting to hang out. My experience as a jockey, most horses, when they’re hanging out, don’t have their head turned out; they have their head turned in. Horses that are hanging out, they’re usually wanting to lay out; and the jockey’s got the inside rein, which is this right-arm rein, turned in. So that would show me that the horse is not hanging out. If anything, it’s got a tendency to lay in. And I also noted, when I read the transcript, Mr Curry’s statement at the inquiry where he said Apprentice Goldsbury reported that the horse wanted to get in on one rein; that tells me the horse wanted to lay in. But for the majority of the inquiry here today and in her submission, Apprentice Goldsbury stated that the horse wanted to hang out. So one’s in and one’s out. So I’m yet to determine which one that is because the video doesn’t support either at this stage [this comment is relevant up to about the about 800m mark]. (Transcript, page 1.53)

…

We, as a panel – we – we’re of the view that the reason the horse was racing erratically or intractable, as Ms Goldsbury stated, was because of her actions with her hands. She’s got hold of the reins and when she’s – when she’s pulling the inside rein, it’s throwing its head up and, when she’s turning it the other way, it’s doing the same [this comment made at about the about 500m mark]. (Transcript, page 1.54)

…

Apprentice Goldsbury did say that the horse changed legs running the home turn, which we agreed it did. But we’re saying – my experience as a rider, if you – if a horse is wanting to hang out and you turn the rein in, the horse will lead on its outside leg. If you straighten its head up or turn its head to the outside, it’ll actually change and go onto the right leg. We’re saying the reason the horse changed onto the wrong leg was because she kept restraining it with the inside rein. (Transcript, page 1.54)

…

For a horse that’s hanging out, it’s pretty well in on the rail. So we – we definitely can’t agree that the horse was the matter, had anything to do with it. In fact, we say her actions of restraining the horse caused the horse to race erratic. And if we play on and we get around the home turn, as Apprentice Goldsbury stated, as well, when she asked the horse to quicken or go with the whip, the horse responded. And what we’re saying is if she’d asked – let the reins go a lot earlier, the horse would have responded as well. And, in the home straight, if anything, with the whip in the right hand, which a horse is wanting to hang out, they’d want to shift wider – the horse actually laid into the whip in the home straight and went pretty true. So we were comfortably satisfied that her actions over a significant period of the race – and I’ll just like to clarify, as well, Apprentice Goldsbury said a slight error or – over a second or two will – the – the point from the 600 to the 350 is probably about a 17 or 18 second – periods where we felt she – she made several decisions that were wrong, and we’re not saying that they were split decisions. We’re saying her actions was something that we can’t condone... (Transcript, pages 1.54-1.55)

49. [49]
    The concern of the stewards as it involves that portion of Ms Goldsbury’s race ride remaining relevant to her suspension may be summarised as:

    1. (a)
       Occhilupo was poorly handled by Ms Goldsbury. The horse was not hanging as claimed by Ms Goldsbury but, if anything, may have been laying in;
    2. (b)
       Ms Goldsbury should have allowed Occhilupo to improve its position between 600m and 250m by not pulling on either rein. Once she released the reins upon entering the home straight the horse ran true, as the stewards believed it would have done earlier had it been properly ridden; and
    3. (c)
       The errors made by Ms Goldsbury between 600m and 250m were not split-second errors, but persisted for 17-18 seconds.

Applying the Evidence

50. [50]
    Looking at the evidence concerning the running of the race as a whole, I am satisfied as follows:

    1. (a)
       Occhilupo started from the barrier indifferently;
    2. (b)
       Occhilupo was bumped shortly after the start;
    3. (c)
       Occhilupo fought with the jockey for control during the first 200m or so of the race;
    4. (d)
       Occhilupo raced ungenerously during most of the race, as stated by Ms Goldsbury, mentioned by the race-caller at 800m, and evident from the video recording;
    5. (e)
       Occhilupo changed his gait at least twice during the race, which is consistent with the evidence of Ms Goldsbury (‘he was on the wrong leg’) and the video evidence;
    6. (f)
       Between 600m and 250m there were limited opportunities for Ms Goldsbury to find a gap in the field allowing her to advance, and going 4-wide on the home turn may have proved beyond the horse, even allowing that the course was flat or slightly descending at that point; and
    7. (g)
       Once a gap in the field was presented at about 250m Ms Goldsbury rode with evident purpose and vigour to the winning post.
51. [51]
    During his cross-examination of Mr Neil Boyle, chairman of stewards at the race meeting, Mr Murdoch QC for the Applicant stated the decision before the Tribunal rather colourfully as:^[17]

So doesn’t it become a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, in that Ms Goldsbury says that the horse had a tendency to lay, and therefore she was restraining it? You say the horse was laying because she was restraining it; it’s as simple as that, isn’t it, what came first the chicken or the egg?

52. [52]
    The assertion of the Respondent is that Ms Goldsbury failed to ride with sufficient purpose or vigour between the 600m mark and the 250m mark when clearly opportunity existed.
53. [53]
    The response by Ms Goldsbury is, in essence, that she conducted her ride to the best of her ability, but that her ride was adversely affected by a number of factors.^[18]
54. [54]
    I am satisfied that the ride by Ms Goldsbury in this instance was at the lower end of what could be expected from a jockey, even an apprentice jockey, acknowledging that she is licensed to ride in the metropolitan area (albeit provisionally – that is, during mid-week meetings).
55. [55]
    This conclusion as to Ms Goldsbury’s performance in the race is also the conclusion of Mr Boyle in his capacity as Chairman of stewards hearing the original charge against Ms Goldsbury on 13 December 2017, where Mr Boyle says:^[19]

… we felt that (1) your ride was poor, and (2) you made more than one poor decision, we felt that you restrained the horse on two occasions …

56. [56]
    But a poor ride is not the relevant test concerning a breach of ARR 135(b). In order to find Ms Goldsbury guilty of breaching ARR 135(b), there has to be a sufficient degree of culpability.
57. [57]
    The decision-maker has to be comfortably satisfied^[20] that the offence has been committed. The more serious the allegation, the more persuasive the proof must be. The charge against Ms Goldsbury was a serious one: it was the second time she had been charged with the same offence, on successive race days; and as Mr Boyle said when the stewards panel imposed its penalty on Ms Goldsbury:^[21]

… the decision of this panel is we feel that it’s a pretty serious charge.

58. [58]
    If the ride between 600m and 250m is looked at as one continuous decision by the jockey, to remain behind the leaders and not go wide, requiring her to restrain her mount from charging up to the leaders and causing interference or worse when she believed there was insufficient gap, then the 17-18 seconds involved could be explained as the result of one poor decision. The issue becomes: did this decision arise from inexperience and other exculpatory factors on the day, or did it arise from behaviour by the jockey that was culpable?
59. [59]
    In this regard, I refer to the exculpatory factors mentioned in paragraphs [42] and [43], above. Taking account of the following factors which have been sufficiently demonstrated on the evidence, Ms Goldsbury’s degree of culpability is reduced to the point where her poor riding performance does not reach the threshold to sustain a charge against ARR 135(b):

    1. (a)
       Her relative inexperience as an apprentice jockey;
    2. (b)
       This race was her return to race riding after a month’s suspension;
    3. (c)
       The lack of training and mentoring she had obtained as an apprentice in Australia, having come from New Zealand;
    4. (d)
       Her lack of experience with Occhilupo, this being her first ride on him for a race, trial, or jump out (although she had ridden him trackwork);
    5. (e)
       Occhilupo is a stallion, a large horse, strong, and difficult to control; and
    6. (f)
       Occhilupo was resuming racing in its first start after a 27-week break and appears to have been difficult to handle and raced ‘ungenerously’.
60. [60]
    Taking into account the evidence before the Tribunal, I cannot be comfortably satisfied that Ms Goldsbury was culpable in her ride and is, therefore, not guilty of the offence charged.
61. [61]
    Further, taking account of the facts that Occhilupo was the top-weight and second favourite in the race, that Occhilupo had not had a race start in 27 weeks, and that Occhilupo was a large stallion would suggest that the choice of an apprentice jockey with a 1.5kg claim who was returning to race riding after a lay-off of 4 weeks was unwise. For these reasons any culpability, to the extent that it exists at all, is not that of Ms Goldsbury’s alone.
62. [62]
    The better and preferable decision in this instance is that the decisions of the stewards on 13 December 2017 finding, and of Mr Kane Ashby in his Internal Review Decision dated 10 January 2018 affirming, Ms Goldsbury guilty of breaching ARR 135(b) and liable to suspension for 2 months should be set aside and the following decision made:

    1. (a)
       Apprentice Rebecca Goldsbury is not guilty of a charge pursuant to Rule 135(b) of the Australian Rules of Racing arising from Race 2 at Toowoomba Racecourse on 2 December 2017.