Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 28 February 2024 – Matthew Purvis

BACKGROUND

Information No. A16923, has been filed by Racing Investigator, Kylie Williams.

The Information alleges that on the 28th day of December 2023, at Patterson Park Racecourse, Westport, Matthew Charles Purvis, being a Licensed Public Trainer and Open Driver, did misconduct himself when he assaulted Licensed Junior Driver and Trainer, Scott Iremonger, by punching him about the head, in breach of Rule 303(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing.

An Authority to Charge, signed by the Chief Executive of the Racing Integrity Board, Mike Clement, was produced.

The Respondent was present at the hearing of the Information. The Adjudicative Committee approved Mr John Purvis, father of the Respondent, who was also present at the hearing, as lay advocate to represent the Respondent.

The charge and the Rule were read to the Respondent, who confirmed that he understood them and indicated that the charge was admitted.

Rule 303 provides:

(2) No person or body to whom these rules apply shall: 

      (a) misconduct themselves

THE FACTS

Racing Investigator, Mrs Williams presented the following agreed Summary of Facts.

1. The Respondent, Matthew Charles Purvis, is a Licensed Public Trainer and Open Driver under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand. He is 33 years old and trains approximately 20 horses from his stable in Woodend Beach.

2. HRNZ records detail that he has held a Trainer’s Licence since 2013 and has had over 1250 starts since that time. (He has also had over 700 drives since 2013).

3. The victim in this matter is 25-year-old, Scott Iremonger, who, at the time, was a Licensed Trainer and Junior Driver.

4. The Respondent and the victim are known to each other, but only within the Industry perspective and do not socialise together.

5. Thursday, 28 December 2023, was the second day of the Westport TC meeting at Patterson Park, Westport, with the last race concluding at approximately 6.00pm.

6. Following the races, the Club held a small private social function outside the main administration block.

7. Both the Respondent and the victim attended the function at separate tables and were both consuming alcohol.

8. Also present at the function was Paul Cameron, the father of the Respondent’s ex-partner, Junior Driver, Alana Cameron.

9. At approximately 9.30pm, the Respondent went to the bathroom in the main toilet block and, a short time later, the victim also entered the room. The pair exchanged words regarding Ms Cameron and driving engagements while the Respondent was in the toilet cubicle.

10. Mr Cameron also entered the toilet block and, upon hearing the two referencing his daughter, confronted the victim as he tried to push past him to leave the room, resulting in a minor altercation between Cameron and Iremonger.

11. The Respondent exited the toilet cubicle and, while Mr Cameron was restraining the victim, he also restrained the Respondent who then threw several punches at the victim over the top of Mr Cameron, striking the victim about the face on two occasions.

12. Another party soon entered the toilet block and defused and removed the Respondent from the situation.

13. The victim reported the incident to the RIB and the Westport Police the following morning and was assessed by medical staff as suffering a minor abrasion on the right forehead, swelling to his left cheek and suspected concussion. He was interviewed by RIB staff that afternoon.

14. The Respondent was interviewed by the Police and charged with common assault.

15. When interviewed by RIB staff, the Respondent admitted to being affected by alcohol and to punching the victim in the head twice. In explanation, he stated that the victim had been making derogatory and sexualised comments regarding his ex-partner, both at the social function and again in the toilet block, which angered him.

16. The Respondent has no previous non-raceday charges.

DECISION

The charge having been admitted, it is deemed proved.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT

Penalty: Purpose and principles

1.  The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge can be summarised briefly:

(i)  Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
(ii)  In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
(iii)  A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Committee for the type of offending in question.
(iv)  The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

2.  RIB’s Position as to penalty

2.1  The RIB HR Penalty Guide of 01 February 2023 details the starting point for a first breach of the Misconduct Rule as a $600 fine and is said to be “fact dependent”.

2.2  Additionally, Mr Purvis has been charged by the police for this offending, with the common assault charge being remanded until 6 March.

2.3  Comparable Cases

There are no recent similar cases of misconduct involving assault in the Harness Code. The most relevant recent cases are in the Thoroughbred Code.

RIB v Lloyd (2023)
Trainer admitted a charge of misconduct after assaulting her ex-partner and his girlfriend in the Racecourse Hotel following a race meeting at Riccarton. The assaults involved a forceful push and grappling with the girlfriend and a single punch to the side of the head of the ex-partner causing him to fall to the floor. The Adjudicative Committee commented:

It is evident to the Adjudicative Committee that the actions from Ms Lloyd are out of character and are likely the result of excess alcohol consumption, combined with some level of provocation and extenuating circumstances in regard to the relationship between Ms Lloyd and the victims.

Ultimately, it is the participant’s personal responsibility to maintain the standards expected from a Licence Holder at all times, its is clear that on this occasion, Ms Lloyd has breached those standards.

The Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of $1,500 and found the appropriate penalty to be a fine of $900.

RIU v Rauhihi (2019)
Trainer admitted a charge of misconduct for a single punch to the face of another Trainer, causing a cut and bruising, when on a Racecourse at jump-outs. Rauhihi was also charged by the police for common assault. The penalty issued was a $1300 fine. In their decision the Committee stated:

Misconduct under Rule 340 can encompass an infinite variety of behaviour. It is clearly designed to protect the interest of all who are involved in the racing industry, and those who may be in any way involved in racing matters. It goes as wide as the community at large which may be harmed by misconduct under the rules by licence holders, officials etc. It is designed also to protect and enhance the reputation and credibility of thoroughbred racing in the eyes of the public and community. If there is misconduct this reputation is harmed.

3. Mitigating Factors

3.1  Mr Purvis has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity and has been fully cooperative throughout the RIB investigation;

3.2  He has engaged in counselling with Racing Chaplain, Andrew McKerrow, and has shown a willingness to seek further help and support;

3.3  Comments made by the victim regarding the Respondent’s ex-partner (and mother of his child) appear to have provoked the Respondent’s actions;

3.4  Mr Purvis has no further behavioural charges or any other NRI (Non Raceday) charges in his 11 years of holding a Licence.

4. Aggravating Factors

4.1  Mr Purvis is 33 years old and first held a Licence in 2013. He should be aware of the expectation of Industry participants to maintain a high standard of behaviour;

4.2  The behaviour he demonstrated, while under the influence of alcohol, is detrimental to the reputation of Harness Racing, and any physical violence must be denounced and considered as serious misconduct.

5. Conclusion

5.1  The RIB submits that the starting point for penalty in this case should be as it was in Lloyd of a $1,500 fine, given the facts as known and adjusted, given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

5.2  No costs are sought.

Mrs Williams then presented the following:

(i) a “Victim Impact Statement” made by Mr Iremonger. A copy was handed to the Respondent to read.
(ii) a medical report by Dr Richard Rax (of Ngakawau Health Services, Hector) dated 29 December 2023; and
(iii) a series of photographs taken on 29 December showing the injuries to Mr Iremonger.

The Adjudicative Committee sought clarification from the parties as to a statement in the Victim Impact Statement where Mr Iremonger stated that he had been “attacked” by two men. The Respondent explained that the other man present was the father of his ex-partner, who was attempting to separate the Respondent and Mr Iremonger.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1.  The Respondent explained that he had a full day of Raceday drives at the Harness Meeting that day. He had returned to the campsite where he was staying following the races and had showered, before returning to the function at the Racecourse.

2.  He there had a conversation with Mr Iremonger concerning his ex-partner, in which Mr Iremonger made certain disparaging remarks about her, and calling into question her morals.

3.  The Respondent said that he walked away following that conversation, feeling “quite annoyed”. Some 30 minutes later, he went to the bathroom where he was followed by Mr Iremonger, who continued his tirade about Ms Cameron, this time about her ability as a Driver.

4.  When he left the toilet cubicle, feeling “quite enraged” having heard what Mr Iremonger was saying, Mr Iremonger was still there and the Respondent admitted striking two blows to the side of the head of Mr Iremonger, while being restrained by Mr Cameron, who had followed them into the bathroom. He believed that Mr Cameron had overheard the conversation.

5.  He denied that he had approached Mr Iremonger from behind and did not hold him by the throat.

6.  Following that incident, the Respondent said, he went back to the campsite to “cool off” before returning to the function and apologising to those attending the function who were aware of what had gone on.

7.  The Respondent’s relationship with Ms Cameron had recently ended and, as a consequence, he was under a lot of mental and financial stress. He admitted that he did not take kindly to Mr Iremonger’s uncomplimentary comments concerning Ms Cameron.

8.  The Respondent told the Adjudicative Committee that, since the incident, he has undergone counselling with Racing Chaplain, Andrew McKerrow (letter from Mr McKerrow produced). He also produced a character reference from Mr Graeme McMaster.

9.  He had contacted Mrs Williams and Stipendiary Steward, Shane Renault, offering to make a statement prior to being contacted by them. He had admitted the breach at the earliest reasonable opportunity. In terms of the incident itself, it was more of a “scuffle” rather than “an out and out assault”, he said.

10.  He is taking steps to ensure that he will not find himself in this situation again.

11.  The Respondent has lost horses from his Stable as a result of the incident, and has suffered adverse publicity in the news media and on social media platforms.

12.  Mr Purvis Snr said that the Respondent has not as yet apologised to Mr Iremonger. It is part of his bail conditions that he not have any, contact with Mr Iremonger and, in any event, he would prefer to make his apology in person.

13.  Mr Purvis Snr added that there had been “significant provocation”. He suggested that Mr Iremonger had resented losing drives for a certain Stable which had gone to Miss C. This was nothing to do with the Respondent, he said.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The penalty provision is provided in Rule 1003:

(1)   A person who commits a breach of any Rule shall . . . be liable to the following
penalties:
(a)  a fine not exceeding $10,000.00; and/or
(b)  suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
(c)  disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months.

1. The Respondent, Licensed Open Trainer and Open Driver, Matt Purvis has admitted a charge that at Patterson Park, Westport, at a social function following the race meeting there on 28 December 2023, he misconducted himself by punching another Licenceholder, Scott Iremonger, about the head.

2. Misconduct charges are not common in Harness Racing, especially charges involving any sort of physical altercation.

3. The incident took place in the toilet block at the Racecourse. It is difficult to establish what led to the confrontation between the Respondent and Mr Iremonger. The Adjudicative Committee heard the Respondent’s version, but not Mr Iremonger’s. The parties were known to each other, but were not friends. The Adjudicative Committee was told that Mr Iremonger had spoken to the Respondent earlier in the evening when he had taunted the Respondent about his ex-partner. This conversation seems to have been instigated by Mr Iremonger, resulting in the Respondent feeling, in his own words, “quite annoyed” but he, nevertheless, walked away.

4. It was some 30 minutes later that the Respondent went to the toilet and was followed there by Mr Iremonger. According to Mr Iremonger, the Respondent approached him from behind, but the Adjudicative Committee prefers the Respondent’s version that Mr Iremonger followed him in. Mr Iremonger there continued to talk about the Respondent’s ex-partner in derogatory terms.

5. The Respondent’s ex-partner’s father, possibly anticipating what might be about to happen, followed Mr Iremonger into the toilet and was able to separate the two of them but not, the Adjudicative Committee accepts, before the Respondent was able to strike two blows to the head of Mr Iremonger. Mr Iremonger alleged that he had also been held around the throat, which was denied by the Respondent.

6. It is accepted that both the Respondent and Mr Iremonger were affected by alcohol at the time. Had this not been the case, it is likely the incident would not have happened. It does not excuse the actions of either. The Respondent told the Adjudicative Committee that he has not consumed any alcohol since the incident, and it appreciates that he is taking steps in regard to his drinking.

7. The Adjudicative Committee has seen the medical report by Dr Rax but, for reasons of privacy, it cannot refer to its contents. It is important to note, however, that the report referred to the only visible injuries as a “minor abrasion on right forehead and left cheek swelling, no obvious fractures” and possible concussion. The photographs produced at the hearing supported that the injuries were minor.

8. The Respondent has freely admitted the assault on Mr Iremonger, but he has put before the Adjudicative Committee circumstances of provocation which caused him to react in the heat of the moment. If indeed he was provoked by Mr Iremonger’s comments about his ex-partner and mother of his child then, obviously, he would have found such comments extremely personal and hurtful. At the same time, the Respondent’s reaction cannot be condoned, as any form of violence is not acceptable from Harness Racing participants or, indeed, anywhere.

9. The Adjudicative Committee is not satisfied that the extent of injuries to Mr Iremonger amounts to an aggravating factor. The injuries seemed relatively minor, based on the Adjudicative Committee’s assessment of the medical report and photographs.

10. Mitigating factors are the Respondent’s early admission of the breach, his cooperation during the investigation, his previous good record and, not least, that he may have been provoked and has overreacted in the heat of the moment.

11. The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (February 2023) suggests a starting point for a breach of Rule 303(2) – Misconduct – of a $600 fine. The starting point is expressed to be “fact dependent”. The Adjudicative Committee has attached little weight to that suggested starting point in this case, which involves a physical assault.

12. The Informant has submitted that the Adjudicative Committee should take as a starting point for penalty, that adopted by the Adjudicative Committee in the Lloyd case, to which it was referred, of a $1,500 fine. From that starting point, it is necessary to make adjustment after weighing up the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.

13. There are no aggravating factors. The aggravating factors referred to by the Informant in submissions are tacit in the charge. The mitigating factors, the Adjudicative Committee has referred to in para 10 (above) of these reasons.

14. The facts of this case are similar to Lloyd in several respects – it involved a physical assault, alcohol was involved, there was an element of provocation, the Respondent had a good record and admitted the breach.

15. In Lloyd, the Adjudicative Committee “balanced the mitigating factors against the starting point” and decided that an appropriate penalty was a fine of $900. Given the coincidence of the facts and mitigating factors with this case, the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that a fine of $900 is also appropriate in this case.

16. The Adjudicative Committee is aware that the Respondent is awaiting sentence on an assault charge in the District Court. The Adjudicative Committee records that it has had no regard to that matter in its consideration of sentence on this charge of misconduct brought by the Racing Integrity Board.

17. This Decision has been amended from that originally released. It is acknowledged that certain findings were made without the benefit of hearing from Mr Iremonger regarding the reason for the assault. Following the issue of the original Decision, the Adjudicative Committee has become aware that certain matters raised by the Respondent are not accepted by Mr Iremonger. Given this conflict, the Adjudicative Committee makes no factual findings as to the cause of the assault.

18. The Adjudicative Committee has decided that, notwithstanding, there will be no change in the penalty originally imposed – that is to say, a fine of $900.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY

Public Trainer and Open Driver, Matt Purvis, is fined the sum of $900.

COSTS

There is no order as to costs.