Matt Cameron

[pete]

Bloody hell...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/top-jockey-who-indecently-assaulted-man-fails-in-bid-to-avoid-conviction/GOKQ77SQMCU6XAHZZS7XM4FCBQ/

[slam dunk]

Lets look at it objectively.

Case A 60hrs community service plus $900 financial penalty plus livelihood gone. Banned from racing.

Case B 300 hrs comm service plus $15000 financial penalty.

Yet Case B goes and runs for mayor. Still has a shares in horses running. 

 

 

[Maximus]

Punishment has to fit the crime.

Lower-moderate end, acc to the judge.

First offence unless I'm mistaken.

Max does not condone any non-consensual sexual activity among adults. Rapists, paedosphiles, abusers should be made to pay the price of their abuse.

For Cameron to lose his livelihood from a first-offence, low-level sexual incident/crime would not be a fit punishment.

MM

[Turny]

Interesting isn't it Max, the learned Judge made open comments about the low level of the offending and stated that the Racing jurisdiction should reflect that in their decision. Clearly her view was his role as a jockey should not have been at risk.

Sometimes 1 and 1 don't make 2.

Very sad for many reasons and I trust all parties receiving the relevant Mental Health support.

Tragically sad

[Hesi]

It does seem unfair that he has been penalised twice, in the civil courts and by the racing jurisdiction, especially when there was a clear directive from the judge

[Hesi]

1 hour ago, slam dunk said:

Lets look at it objectively.

Case A 60hrs community service plus $900 financial penalty plus livelihood gone. Banned from racing.

Case B 300 hrs comm service plus $15000 financial penalty.

Yet Case B goes and runs for mayor. Still has a shares in horses running. 

 

 

Objectively, Case A is a many times more successful jockey than Case B lol

[Turny]

25 minutes ago, Hesi said:

It does seem unfair that he has been penalised twice, in the civil courts and by the racing jurisdiction, especially when there was a clear directive from the judge

Agree entirely Hesi, fundamentally wrong at law.

I am sure he has his legal team appealing the racing decision, and so he should as the Court directive was very clear.

As I have said previously, sometimes 1 and 1 don't make two

[craigos1]

I agree with your sentiments Tom,

I think he can appeal also to appeals board.

Surely the powers that be read the Judges court transcript.

[Hesi]

Can someone post the relevant transcript from the judge

[Turny]

6 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Can someone post the relevant transcript from the judge

Won't be released for several weeks, have it on order

Tom

[Hesi]

Reading the Rules of Racing, NZTR must warn him off from entering a racecourse, because of the sexual offence.  Because he is then warned off, it is automatic revoking of his license for 2 years.  There does not appear to be a discretionary part to the rules, other than him being able to apply to the Exemptions Committee

[karrotsishere]

Is this exemption panel the same panel that lay down the punishment term? Like the Wigg case, which she is challenging in High Court?

Agree seems a tad harsh. Def lower end of offending. And he was intoxciated other words under the influence (not in his clear state of mind).

[Hesi]

Pass

[curious]

15 hours ago, slam dunk said:

Lets look at it objectively.

Case A 60hrs community service plus $900 financial penalty plus livelihood gone. Banned from racing.

Case B 300 hrs comm service plus $15000 financial penalty.

Yet Case B goes and runs for mayor. Still has a shares in horses running. 

 

 

Are you suggesting that the two offences are in anyway comparable?

[curious]

59 minutes ago, karrotsishere said:

Is this exemption panel the same panel that lay down the punishment term?

 

No.

[curious]

20 minutes ago, curious said:

No.

Exemptions Committee means a committee comprising of the Chief Executive or General Manager of each racing code and a Chairman appointed by the racing codes;

[Hesi]

From NZTR release

Cameron is able to apply for an exemption from being a prohibited person via the Exemptions Committee, however, would then have to reapply for his licence.

[Turny]

Light at the end of the tunnel maybe Hesi, certainly the Court comments must be acknowledged in the process, or should be

Edited August 18, 2022 by Turny

[Hesi]

Maybe

It's ironic, that these rules were put in place to protect the image of racing, yet racing still has such a poor image??

[slam dunk]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Are you suggesting that the two offences are in anyway comparable?

If you read the post carefully you will see I am making the point the two cases are not comparable. Case B is far worse yet Cameron has his life buggered whilst the other no affect.

[curious]

Well SD the Rules of Racing don't agree with you. Any assault conviction with a criminal penalty over certain levels (and imo opinion this was a particularly heinous sexual assault) immediately triggers a 2 year prohibition. This is covered by a special category in the rules, separate from other criminal offences.

Edited August 18, 2022 by curious

[Hesi]

It's all there in black and white if you want to read it, relevant bits highlighted

LICENCES
301 (1) NZTR may grant Licences.
(2) When considering an application or granting a Licence, NZTR may:
(a) exempt an applicant from any requirement for that Licence; and/or
(b) impose such conditions as it sees fit in respect of that Licence.
(3) A Licence shall not be issued to any person:
(a) who is or has been an illegal bookmaker or an illegal bookmaker’s clerk or agent;
and/or
(b) who is excluded from entering a Racecourse pursuant to Rules made under section 40
of the Racing Industry Act 2020; and/or
(c) who is undergoing a period of disqualification imposed under these Rules or by Another
Racing Authority; and/or
(d) whose name appears in the Arrears List or a list of arrears for Another Racing Authority;
and/or;
(e) who is warned off under Rule 659; and/or [Amended 1 July 2021]
(f) who NZTR considers to be unsuitable to hold a Licence for reasons of integrity,
competence, animal welfare issues or otherwise (including, without limitation, reasons
relating to the applicant’s financial circumstances). [Amended 1 May 2015] [Amended 1 September 2020]
(4) Any Licence issued to a person who subsequently comes within any of the provisions of Rule
301(3)(a) to (e) is automatically revoked.

WARNING OFF [Added 1 May 2015]
659 NZTR may, on reasonable grounds, warn a person off. A person warned off by NZTR:
(a) may not enter any Racecourse, Training Facility, Trainers Premise, or other area connected
with the conduct or racing and/or the care of thoroughbred horses;
(b) is not eligible to hold any category of licence issued under the Rules;
(c) may not be registered as an Owner or a Lessee of a horse to which these Rules apply;
(d) is not eligible to be an Authorised Syndicator, a racing manager, or an Accountable Person;
and
(e) for the avoidance of doubt, must in all other respects be excluded wherever possible from any
participation in or association with thoroughbred racing and the care of thoroughbred horses.

THIRD SCHEDULE
(Rule 525(2)(c)(vi))
PROHIBITION PROVISIONS
Rules Pursuant to Section 40 of the Racing Industry Act 2020
1. Interpretation – In this schedule:
(a) Racecourse, racing rules, racing code, and racing betting each has the same meaning ascribed
to it in section 5 of the Racing Industry Act 2020;
(b) Bookmaker has the same meaning ascribed to it in section 4 of the Gambling Act 2003;
(c) Exemptions Committee means a committee comprising of the Chief Executive or General
Manager of each racing code and a Chairman appointed by the racing codes; and
(d) References to any Act include references to any subsequent Act consolidating or in
substitution of it.
2. Prohibited persons – For the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the conduct of racing and
the integrity of racing betting:
(a) Persons (other than eligible individuals under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 and
those persons to which 2(b) applies) of the classes described in Category 1 are excluded
absolutely from entering any racecourse to which section 40 of the Racing Industry Act 2020
applies; and
(b) Persons (other than eligible individuals under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004) of
the classes described in Category 2 are excluded for a period of two years from the date of
conviction from entering any racecourse to which section 40 of the Racing Industry Act 2020
applies.
3. Exemptions –
(a) Any person excluded under Rule 2 hereof from entering a racecourse may apply in writing to
the Exemptions Committee to be exempted wholly or in part from that prohibition.
(b) The Exemptions Committee may grant an exemption in whole or in part if it is satisfied that,
having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the particular individual, doing so will not
compromise the maintenance of public confidence in the conduct of racing and the integrity of
racing betting.
Category 1
Classes of person excluded absolutely from entering any racecourse under Rule 2(a) –
Racing Disqualifications
(a) Disqualified persons under the racing rules made by racing codes;
(b) Persons who are disqualified or prohibited by racing authorities in any country outside New Zealand
having reciprocal agreements with one or more of the racing codes;
Bookmaking, Betting and Racing
(c) Bookmakers and persons acting as bookmakers agents but not persons lawfully acting as bookmakers
or bookmakers agents in any country outside New Zealand;
(d) Persons convicted (whether before or after the commencement of these rules) of any offence or
infringement offence under the Gambling Act 2003, the Gaming Act 1908 or under Part II of the
Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977;
(e) Persons convicted (whether before or after the commencement of these rules) of any offence under
the Racing Industry Act 2020, or the Racing Act 2003 or the Racing Act 1971;
Page 163 of 194
Offences
(f) Persons convicted (whether before or after the commencement of these rules) of the following
offences:
(i) endangering safety under sections 12 or 13 of the Summary Offences Act 1981;
(ii) possession of weapons or imitation firearms in a public place; or
(iii) any offence under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977 (other than Part II which relates to
Bookmakers and Betting);
Crimes
(g) Persons convicted (whether before or after the commencement of these rules) of any of the
following crimes, or of being a party to any such crime, or of conspiring or attempting to commit any
such crime:
(i) crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, forgery, bribery or corruption;
(ii) violence offences, sexual offences, indecent acts or arson;
(iii) serious drug offences;
(iv) burglary, robbery or conversion; or
(v) participation in an organised criminal group under section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961; and
 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Hesi

[slam dunk]

being a party to a crime is being an accessory after the fact. Therefore knowingly disobeying a court order can be classed as assisting someone to evade prosectution hence being an accessory after the fact.

[Hesi]

It is automatic 2 year revocation of his license

The only provision that I can see, is applying to the Exemptions Committee, based on the judge's comments, that is was low level offending

[curious]

I think the judge actually said it was at the lower end of moderate level for a sexual assault, not low level nor low for offending in an overall sense. However, the judge also seemed likely to make comments in his decision supporting the Exemptions Committee giving serious consideration to granting the exemption given the way Matt had handled himself and the situation.

Edited August 20, 2022 by curious