I might have been wrong!

[shebeen]

Remember it's most likely in English, so the accused is most likely speaking in his second language.

I didn't realise that PR had actually got hold of the citing docs, and paraphrased it here. https://www.planetrugby.com/news/ex...ndrik-wessels-ban-and-josh-murphys-role-in-it

I'm not going to add further comment.....

The appeal was dismissed with no new evidence, but this might be going to court.

Jan-Hendrik Wessels saga heading to Irish court?

UPDATE: The controversial ban of Springbok utility forward may face an unprecedented legal challenge.

rugby365.com

The URC said both the original and appeal reports will be published in due course but confirmed the matter is now closed.
I suppose "in due course" could be a long period - anyone know what filing cabinet in which public library the URC hides it's documents?

 

[Rich_NL]

That's an interesting approach, I wonder on what grounds a court can intervene on an organisation's implementation of its own disciplinary rules? I can only really think of discrimination cases, which would be very hard to prove.

Also notable that they rejected the appeal and at the same time reduced the ban. But only by a week.

 

[Balones]

That's an interesting approach, I wonder on what grounds a court can intervene on an organisation's implementation of its own disciplinary rules? I can only really think of discrimination cases, which would be very hard to prove.

Also notable that they rejected the appeal and at the same time reduced the ban. But only by a week.

Only referring to the UK. Fundamentally you are not allowed to break the law of the land even if you are playing a sport. They can and generally do take precedence over sport laws/rules/regulations. However the courts have been given latitude to allow governing bodies to deal with infractions of the laws of the land if they also fall within the remit of the sport. Basically if anyone is not satisfied with a disciplinary outcome they can take it to the courts.

 

[Harry]

Only referring to the UK. Fundamentally you are not allowed to break the law of the land even if you are playing a sport. They can and generally do take precedence over sport laws/rules/regulations. However the courts have been given latitude to allow governing bodies to deal with infractions of the laws of the land if they also fall within the remit of the sport. Basically if anyone is not satisfied with a disciplinary outcome they can take it to the courts.

In my experience of the law (working alongside a barrister) a court would use the "reasonable person" test. So a reasonable person playing Rugby would expect another player to respect the laws of the game, so if they were injured in a lawful tackle and tried to sue they would likely lose a law suit. However a reasonable person would not expect to get bitten in a game. I doubt the police or PPS would be interested in prosecuting so you'd have to bring a civil suit. But as you would have suffered little if any financial loss or permanent physical harm you'd get little or no damages.

 

[Rich_NL]

Of course playing a sport is not a cover for illegal activities. My question is more on what legal ground you could challenge a disciplinary decision where the documented process has been followed and you don't like the result.

 

[Harry]

Of course playing a sport is not a cover for illegal activities. My question is more on what legal ground you could challenge a disciplinary decision where the documented process has been followed and you don't like the result.

I guess you could take out a civil law suit against whoever you deemed o have made the wrong decision. Either the disciplinary committee or WR.

 

[didds]

Only referring to the UK. Fundamentally you are not allowed to break the law of the land even if you are playing a sport. They can and generally do take precedence over sport laws/rules/regulations. However the courts have been given latitude to allow governing bodies to deal with infractions of the laws of the land if they also fall within the remit of the sport. Basically if anyone is not satisfied with a disciplinary outcome they can take it to the courts.

Indeed. Beacsue if you perpatrated a (rugby legal) rugby tackle on someone in the street it would be assault. But it ain't on a rugby pitch.

 

[shebeen]

That's an interesting approach, I wonder on what grounds a court can intervene on an organisation's implementation of its own disciplinary rules? I can only really think of discrimination cases, which would be very hard to prove.

I suspect that is the angle. Essentially JHW has lost his ability to work and his long term reputation is permanently harmed.

They would most likely say that the hearing/panel was incorrect/biased and only looked at one player's story. The fact that Murphy had his red card for punching removed (which is clearly wrong) by the same panel would also point to this.

Also notable that they rejected the appeal and at the same time reduced the ban. But only by a week.

The defence brought more experts but it was told that it wouldn't be relevant. Reducing it by an additional week is odd, because they already reduced it from 12 - 9.

 

[jeremy]

Of course playing a sport is not a cover for illegal activities.

Indeed, as AFL legend Leigh Matthews discovered, after clocking Neville Bruns behind play.

('Behind play' being very loosely applied here - IIRC Matthews was running to his position before a restart. He pled guilty to common assault.)

My question is more on what legal ground you could challenge a disciplinary decision where the documented process has been followed and you don't like the result.

World Rugby appears to be affiliated with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and I would imagine many (most?) national organisations are also, either in their own right or through World Rugby.

While CAS deals mainly with doping and eligibility cases, the Wikipedia page for CAS says:

The court is reluctant to overturn field of play decisions, though it may do so in cases where there is clear evidence that the officials acted in bad faith or with arbitrariness. In CAS 2010/A/2090, the CAS Panel explained that the reason for this is not a matter of jurisdiction but arbitral self-restraint.

Given this, I would imagine that cases regarding general disciplinary actions could also be taken to CAS, as long as the relevant body's statutes permit it. In theory at least.

The article also notes that as a Swiss organisation, CAS rulings may be appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court, and ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights.

On what grounds could someone go to CAS? My guess would be procedural fairness, and not much else. Good luck with that.

 

[Shelflife]

I suspect that is the angle. Essentially JHW has lost his ability to work and his long term reputation is permanently harmed.

They would most likely say that the hearing/panel was incorrect/biased and only looked at one player's story. The fact that Murphy had his red card for punching removed (which is clearly wrong) by the same panel would also point to this.


The defence brought more experts but it was told that it wouldn't be relevant. Reducing it by an additional week is odd, because they already reduced it from 12 - 9.

They cant claim that they only looked at one players story. JHW was present at the the hearing and had representation the same as JM. They chose to believe JM account over JHW. Its no different to any type of judicial hearing where its a he said / they said situation.

 

[Volun-selected]

I also wonder if most professional players have to sign a waiver or similar stating they will be bound by arbitration as part of the extra conditions and such they saying for these series. That could also introduce a barrier.

 

[shebeen]

They cant claim that they only looked at one players story. JHW was present at the the hearing and had representation the same as JM. They chose to believe JM account over JHW. Its no different to any type of judicial hearing where its a he said / they said situation.

One would think that was the case, but it would appear that the citing commissioner only spoke with Murphy at the match (the URC doesn't seem to want to publicly release citing reports). According to this article which has seen the initial report, it was up to JHW to prove his innocence, rather than the commission to prove him guilty.

According to the report, a decision is made “on the balance of probabilities” and that “this is a lesser standard than proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ applied in criminal cases.”

As a result, the panel “must be satisfied, based on the evidence put forward by the Player (Wessels), or on his behalf, that it is more likely than not that the findings of the Citing Commissioner were wrong.”

Ultimately, it was therefore down to Wessels and his representatives to prove that the citing commissioner, Peter Ferguson, was wrong to bring him before the panel.

Exclusive: Full details emerge of Jan-Hendrik Wessels' ban and Josh Murphy's role in it

🗣️ "Whilst not conclusive, the video evidence supports and shows movements which are consistent with this finding."

www.planetrugby.com

 

[Rich_NL]

One would think that was the case, but it would appear that the citing commissioner only spoke with Murphy at the match (the URC doesn't seem to want to publicly release citing reports). According to this article which has seen the initial report, it was up to JHW to prove his innocence, rather than the commission to prove him guilty.

If that's following the disciplinary procedure as described in the competition regulations, and the teams have all agreed to it, then there's not much room for complaint.