This article forms part of LawInSport’s Annual Review 2024/25. The full chapter, along with the Annual Review, can be read on LawInSport.
Disciplinary Hearings
In the 2022/23 Annual Review, the principle of open justice was considered leading into a discussion of the allegations of institutionalised racism at Yorkshire County Cricket Club (YCCC) as the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB’s) Independent Cricket Disciplinary Commission (CDC) decided to hold a disciplinary hearing in public.
In brief, although sporting bodies are ordinarily private bodies and disputes between it and the athletes are regulated by contractual disciplinary proceedings (stemming from the sports’ regulations), there is often a wider public interest in the outcome of those proceedings.
As detailed in the 2022/23 Annual Review, there are pro’s and con’s to having disciplinary hearings in public. Although the CDC usually operates in private, as the YCCC matter demonstrated, this is not a rule.
Essex County Cricket Club
Another set of allegations that came to the fore following on from Azeem Rafiq’s allegations against YCCC related to similar allegations of institutional racism at Essex County Cricket Club (ECCC).
The ECB launched an investigation into such allegations, while ECCC appointed Katharine Newton KC to conduct an independent investigation (a summary of the findings have been made public and is available on ECCC’s website). Katharine Newton KC’s report aligned with the ECB’s findings that several players were subject to racist abuse and racially discriminatory treatment during their time at ECCC.
In light of such findings, the Cricket Regulator charged the ECCC with the following: “There was systemic use of racist and/or discriminatory language and/or conduct at Essex between 2001 and 2010 which Essex failed to address”.
The ECCC admitted the charge and the sanction levied was the following:
· Caution regarding future conduct
· Reprimand
· A total fine of £100,000, with £50,000 suspended for two years.
The ECCC admitting the charge “at the earliest opportunity” was a significant mitigating factor when it came to sanctions as it indicated that the ECCC were intent on addressing the wrongs of the past.
Interestingly, ECCC’s matter was not the subject of a public disciplinary. It may be that this was because ECCC admitted the charge and the CDC’s role was therefore limited to deciding the appropriate penalty based on presented evidence.
The way the ECCC conducted itself during these proceedings holds some valuable lessons for other sports faced with similar allegations. Rather than bury one’s head in the sand, the allegations should be considered and confronted. If it is found internally that there was improper conduct, it may be tactically better to own those mistakes. This may also be a way to limit any further damage being done, as admitting the charge obviates the need for a hearing (especially a public one).
For an in-depth analysis of the ECCC matter please see this LawInSport article.
