Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 23 December 2025 – Paul Yesberg

1. On 3 December 2025, the Adjudicative Committee found proved a charge against Mr Yesberg under Rule 1001A(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing (the Rules) arising from his failure to comply with the Harness Racing New Zealand Code of Conduct Regulations (HRNZ Code).

2. The conduct comprised a series of communications sent between 28 March and 27 June 2025 to RIB employees, and on several occasions copied to senior RIB executives, HRNZ officials and a media outlet, in which Mr Yesberg repeatedly asserted that the RIB and its personnel were corrupt, dishonest and/or motivated by antisemitic bias, and used abusive phrasing inconsistent with the standards of respect and courtesy required by Clause 7 of the Code.

3. The Adjudicative Committee determined that the manner and form of expression plainly fell below the professional expectations owed by a licence holder under the Code and that the language and repeated accusations undermine confidence and integrity in the independence of the RIB as regulator.

4. Having found the breach proved on the balance of probabilities, the Adjudicative Committee adjourned part-heard to receive written submissions on penalty.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT

5. The RIB submits that the penalty must serve the purposes of punishment (proportionate to the seriousness), general and specific deterrence and the maintenance of standards and public confidence in Harness Racing.

6. Mr Irving points to the sustained and deliberate nature of the conduct over roughly three months, the escalation of allegations to senior officials and media, and the seriousness of accusing the regulator collectively of corruption and antisemitism.

7. Mr Irving submits that no remorse has been shown and identifies no mitigating factors.

8. One previous misconduct matter involving Mr Yesberg is noted in 2013 concerning an offensive email sent to a member of the New Zealand Sires Stakes Board, but the RIB treat this historical matter as neutral due to its age.

9. The Adjudicative Committee is also referred to the case of RIB v Teaz [RIB v Teaz (2023) RIB 22058], the only know Decision involving the HRNZ Code of Conduct since its enactment in which public social media posts criticising handicappers as corrupt attracted a starting point of $2,500, an uplift for aggravating features, a modest discount for cooperation and remorse, resulting in a $2,750 fine.

10. Mr Irving notes that although Teaz involved public facing posts, the present case involved direct communications to officials, persisted over time and included abusive language.

11. Applying Rule 1003(1) which permits a fine of up to $10,000 and/or suspension or disqualification up to 12 months, Mr Irving submits that a financial penalty is warranted and proportionate. Mr Irving noted the RIB had earlier indicated for an admitted breach a fine in the vicinity of $1,000 would be appropriate – in light of the defended hearing and the aggravating features, it now seeks a fine of $1,250.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

12. Mr Yesberg submits that the Adjudicative Committee’s characterisation of no remorse is incorrect. Mr Yesberg notes he offered an apology at the hearing and reiterates his willingness to apologise to anyone who genuinely took offence. Mr Yesberg contends that no identifiable victim was established and argues that this materially undermines the basis for penalty in the absence of proven harm.

13. Mr Yesberg advances broader fairness concerns including selective enforcement and unequal treatment – pointing out more prominent industry figures have made more severe public criticisms without facing charges and asserts that pursuing action against a comparatively low-level licence holder suggests inconsistency influenced by irrelevant considerations.

14. Mr Yesberg also raises structural concerns that the RIB lacks a lawful or transparent escalation mechanism for internal complaints, leaving participants with limited avenues other than direct complaint or public comment – penalising public criticism in such circumstances, Mr Yesberg argues is unreasonable.

15. Mr Yesberg in submissions, further alleges a bias connected to Professor Hall’s association with Mr Yesberg’s earlier public criticism of the Dalgety Decision, and submits a recusal ought to have been considered to avoid a reasonable apprehension of bias.

16. On proportionality, Mr Yesberg emphasises his personal circumstances, noting he is 64, unemployed and suffers from ongoing back injuries and contends that any financial penalty would be punitive rather than regulatory given his limited earning capacity.

17. Lastly, Mr Yesberg invokes freedom of expression principles and seeks confirmation that he is entitled to publicly criticise the RIB and its process and argues that any further disciplinary action arising from the same facts would arise to an improper restraint on lawful speech, or something analogous to double jeopardy.

RECUSAL

18. The Adjudicative Committee has considered Mr Yesberg’s submission that Professor Hall ought to have recused himself due to prior involvement sitting on the Adjudicative Committee in the Dalgety Decision, which Mr Yesberg has criticised. The applicable principles require Adjudicators to hear cases assigned to them unless valid grounds for recusal exist.

19. The test is objective – whether a fair minded and well-informed observer could reasonably apprehend that the Adjudicator might not bring an impartial mind to the matter. This requires real, not remote possibility of bias assessed through a two-stage process, first identifying the circumstances set to give rise to concerns, second determining whether there is a logical and sufficient connection between those circumstances and the apprehension of bias.

20. In this case, the fact that Professor Hall adjudicated an earlier matter and that was subsequently criticised by Mr Yesberg does not establish a real possibility of bias. Adjudicators are expected to withstand criticism and prior involvement in unrelated proceedings does not disqualify them.

21. There is no evidence of personal animus or extrajudicial conduct suggesting a closed mind. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the circumstances fall short of the threshold for recusal. The Adjudicative Committee finds that ground for recusal do not exist, and it is appropriate for the Adjudicative Committee to proceed to determine penalty.

PENALTY DECISION

22. The Adjudicative Committee has considered the submissions of both parties, the relevant Rules and the principles of proportionality, deterrence and maintenance of industry integrity.

23. As was emphasised in RIU v L (RIU v L 13 May 2019), the privilege of having a licence to work as a professional in any profession carries with it a duty to abide by the Rules and ethics of it.

24. The breach involved a sustained series of communications over three months, containing repeated allegations of corruption and antisemitism and language plainly inconsistent with the standards of respect and courtesy required under Clause 7 of the HRNZ Code. These communications were directed to RIB staff and in some instances, copied to senior executives and a media outlet. The conduct was deliberate and aggravated by its persistence and escalation.

25. The Adjudicative Committee further notes an adjournment was granted in large part to allow Mr Yesberg the opportunity to provide an appropriate apology. Mr Yesberg has taken no steps to do so and in his written submissions, remains argumentative, continuing to make various assertions that lack any real foundation. This indicates an absence of remorse and a lack of insight into the seriousness of his conduct. Personal circumstances, more particularly age, unemployment and health issues are acknowledged, but do not outweigh the need for deterrence and denunciation.

26. RIB v Teaz is a comparative case. It confirms penalties for similar breaches under the Code of Conduct attract significant financial sanctions. While Teaz involved public social media posts, the present case involved direct communication to officials and included abusive phrasing. Suspension or disqualification is not warranted, given the nature of the breach and Mr Yesberg’s limited role in the industry.

27. Noting Rule 1003(1), permits a fine of up to $10,000, the Adjudicative Committee considers that a financial penalty is appropriate and proportionate.

28. A fine of $1,250 is imposed. This amount reflects the gravity of the conduct, the absence of mitigating factors and the need for both specific and general deterrence.

29. Accordingly, Mr Yesberg is fined $1,250 for breach of Rule 1001A(2) of the Rules.

COSTS

30. The Informant has not sought an order that Mr Yesberg pay a sum towards the costs it has incurred. The approach taken by the Informant can be considered generous in the circumstances, particularly given this is a situation where proceedings were defended and failed.

31. However, the Adjudicative Committee and its administrative staff have incurred expenses with hearing this Information in Christchurch and an order of costs in the sum of $400 is justified.

32. Mr Yesberg is ordered to pay $400 towards the costs of the Adjudicative Committee.