RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION INDEPENDENT COMPETITION HEARING

Transcription

1 RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION INDEPENDENT COMPETITION HEARING IN THE MATTER OF: Chipping Norton RFC, Slough RFC, Andrew Dawson, Darran Brown, Paul Bryant and Rob Hawkins. AND IN THE MATTER OF: A breach of RFU Regulations 2.4 and (c) and RFU Rule Appeal Venue: Osborne Clarke LLP, One London Wall, London Date of Hearing: 29 March Date of Match: 6 February Match Type: Chipping Norton RFC v Slough RFC, Berks, Bucks and Oxon Premier League - ("the Match"). Panel: Mr Jeremy Summers (Chair), Mr John Loughton and Ms Bonike Erinle ("the Panel") Attendees: RFU Stuart Tennant Chipping Norton RFC Andrew Dawson, Head Coach Vince Murphy, Committee Member Slough RFC Darran Brown, Head Coach Matt Harris, Chairman Trevor Sheddon, Disciplinary Officer and Vice Chairman DECISION 1) The result of the match is declared void with neither club being awarded any league points; 2) If the clubs wish to replay the fixture they are at liberty to do so but no order is made in that regard; 3) Chipping Norton RFC is deducted twenty five (25) league points with immediate effect; 4) Slough RFC is deducted twenty five (25) league points with immediate effect; 1

2 5) Mr Andrew Dawson (Chipping Norton RFC) is suspended from coaching at any level of the game for a period of 20 weeks as follows: 10 March May 2016 inclusive (8 weeks) 1 July September 2016 inclusive (12 weeks) 6) Mr Darran Brown (Slough RFC) is suspended from coaching at any level of the game for a period of 20 weeks as follows: 24 February May 2016 inclusive (10 weeks) 1 July September 2016 inclusive (10 weeks) 7) Mr Paul Bryant (Slough RFC) is suspended from having any involvement in the administration of the game at any level for a period of 14 weeks as follows: 24 February May 2016 inclusive (10 weeks) 13 August September 2016 inclusive (4 weeks) 8) Mr Rob Hawkins (Referee) is suspended from refereeing at any level of the game for a period of 20 weeks as follows: 29 March May 2016 inclusive (5 weeks) 13 August November 2016 inclusive (15 weeks) 9) Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC are each ordered to pay costs of 125. PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1. No objection was made as to the composition of the Panel. 2. Mr Hawkins (the Referee for the Match) did not attend and was not represented. The Panel was advised that he had retired fully from the game and did not wish to participate in the process. BACKGROUND FACTS 3. The facts, which were not in dispute, are set out in the charges brought against the parties as follows: Charge 1 Chipping Norton RFC are charged as follows: Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and (c) and RFU Rule Chipping Norton RFC were responsible for correctly completing the RFU Official Match Result Card in accordance with RFU Regulations. Chipping Norton RFC provided false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping 2

3 Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 as follows: 1. Chipping Norton RFC 1st XV were scheduled to play Slough RFC 1st XV in the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Premier League (South West Division); 2. Due to adverse weather conditions the match was called off and therefore should have been rescheduled; 3. An agreement was made between Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC), Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee) to complete the RFU Official Match Result Card to falsely show that the match had taken place and ended in a draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each; 4. The RFU Official Match Result Card was signed by Andy Dawson (acting as the Home Official for Chipping Norton RFC), Paul Bryant (acting as the Away Official for Slough RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee); and 5. The false RFU Official Match Result Card was sent to the League Secretary and Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC were awarded the points for a draw and try bonus. Charge 2 Slough RFC are charged as follows: Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and (c) and RFU Rule Slough RFC were responsible for correctly completing the RFU Official Match Result Card in accordance with RFU Regulations. Slough RFC provided false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 as follows: 1. Chipping Norton RFC 1st XV were scheduled to play Slough RFC 1st XV in the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Premier League (South West Division); 2. Due to adverse weather conditions the match was called off and therefore should have been rescheduled; 3. An agreement was made between Darran Brown (Head 3

4 Charge 3 Coach, Slough RFC), Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee) to complete the RFU Official Match Result Card to falsely show that the match had taken place and ended in a draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each; 4. The RFU Official Match Result Card was signed by Andy Dawson (acting as the Home Official for Chipping Norton RFC), Paul Bryant (acting as the Away Official for Slough RFC) and Rob Hawkins (referee); and 5. The false RFU Official Match Result Card was sent to the League Secretary and Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC were awarded the points for a draw and try bonus. Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) is charged as follows: Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and (c) and RFU Rule On 6 February 2016, Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) made an agreement with Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee) to provide false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC. It was agreed that the RFU Official Match Result Card should be completed to falsely show that the match had taken place and ended in a draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each. Andy Dawson (acting as the Home Official for Chipping Norton RFC) agreed to sign the RFU Official Match Result Card thus verifying that the information contained on the RFU Official Match Result Card was true. Having signed the RFU Official Match Result Card and knowing or believing that the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 did not in fact take place, Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) failed to take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match Result Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or failed to report the matter to the League Secretary. 4

5 Charge 4 Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC) is charged as follows: Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game (contrary to RFU Rule 5.12) and failing to act with the utmost good faith (contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4). Charge 5 On 6 February 2016, Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC) made an agreement with Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee) to provide false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC. It was agreed that the RFU Official Match Result Card should be completed to falsely show that the match had taken place and ended in a draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each. Knowing or believing that the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 did not in fact take place, Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC) failed to take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match Result Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or failed to report the matter to the League Secretary. Paul Bryant (1st XV manager, Slough RFC) is charged as follows: Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and (c) and RFU Rule Paul Bryant (acting as the Away Official for Slough RFC) agreed to sign the RFU Official Match Result Card thus verifying that the information contained on the RFU Official Match Result Card was true. Having signed the RFU Official Match Result Card and knowing or believing that the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 did not in fact take place, Paul Bryant (1st XV manager, Slough RFC) failed to take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match Result Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or failed to report the matter to the League Secretary. 5

6 Charge 6 Rob Hawkins (Match Referee) is charged as follows: Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game (contrary to RFU Rule 5.12) and failing to act with the utmost good faith (contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4). On 6 February 2016, Rob Hawkins (match referee) made an agreement with Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) and Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC) to provide false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC. It was agreed that the RFU Official Match Result Card should be completed to falsely show that the match had taken place and ended in a draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each. Knowing that the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 had been postponed due to adverse weather conditions and that a false RFU Official Match Result Card had been created by the Clubs, Rob Hawkins (match referee) agreed to sign the RFU Official Match Result Card thus verifying that the information contained in the document was true. Thereafter, Rob Hawkins failed to take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match Result Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or failed to report the matter to the League Secretary. 4. With the exception of Mr Hawkins who provided no response to the charge brought against him, all parties accepted the matters alleged as set out above. RELEVANT REGULATIONS 5. RFU Regulation 2.4 provides as follows: Duty to Act with the Utmost Good Faith All Clubs, Constituent Bodies, National Representative Bodies, all Organising Committees and any player, official, member or employee of a Club or Constituent Body or National Representative Body or an Organising Committee shall at all times act towards the RFU and each other with the utmost good faith. 6. RFU Regulation (c) reads as follows: Completion of Match Result Card 6

7 (c) Accuracy of Information Each Club must ensure that information provided on a Match Result Card is accurate and legible. The provision of false or misleading information on players or replacements shall be a serious breach of this Regulation and may give rise to a severe penalty. 7. Appendix 1 to RFU Regulation 13 Sanction Guidelines further provides: Match Result Card - deliberately false or misleading information ECC - deduction of not less than 20 championship points on each occasion (in addition to any points deducted for a player being ineligible) 8. RFU Rule 5.12 states: The Union shall have power to discipline any (a) Member; (b) Rugby Body; (c) non-voting member of the Union; (d) any player, official, member or employee of a Member or a Rugby Body; or (e) any other person or body that submits to Union s jurisdiction to discipline them; for any infringement of these Rules, the RFU Regulations, the Laws of the Game or the World Rugby Regulations and/or for any conduct which is prejudicial to the interests of the Union or the Game or which amounts to cheating. The Union may terminate or suspend membership of the Union or impose any other appropriate punishment for any such offence. The procedure for and the conduct of disciplinary hearings shall be prescribed by the Council and shall be published in the Handbook. RFU POSITION 9. Mr Tennant opened the case on behalf of the RFU and summarised the facts as set out on the charge sheet. 10. In respect to both clubs he noted that the Panel had wide discretion as to sanction under RFU Rule 5.12 and RFU Regulation In exercising that discretion the Guidelines in Appendix 1 to RFU Regulation 13 however stipulated a points deduction of not less than 20 league points for the deliberate falsification of a Match Result Card. 11. In the RFU's view however that guideline sanction should be increased in this instance to reflect a number of aggravating features that were present. 7

8 12. The minimum sanction would apply when the name one of player was deliberately misstated on a Match Result Card by a club. This was not the case here. There had been collusion by both clubs (and the Referee) and a bonus point draw had been claimed leading to the award of three league points to each club. In consequence the integrity of the league had been compromised. This was a unique situation which, in the RFU's view, merited an uplift from the minimum guideline sanction. 13. As to the individuals, the RFU viewed Messrs, Dawson, Brown and Hawkins as being equally culpable as each had agreed at the time to enter false details on the Match Result Card and for it to be submitted to the league secretary as an honest and accurate document. They should each accordingly be made the subject of the same sanction. 14. Mr Bryant had not been at the ground at the time and was not party to the underlying agreement. Although he had subsequently signed the Match Result Card his culpability was of a lesser scale than the other individuals concerned and his sanction should reflect that fact. 15. Mr Tennant noted that the 2015/16 season was soon to end and reminded the Panel of the need to impose a meaningful period of suspension. MITIGATION 16. On behalf of Chipping Norton, Mr Murphy accepted that there was no possible excuse for what had happened and reflected that the club was at risk of relegation in consequence of the sanction the Panel was likely to impose. 17. As soon as the position had become known to the club chairman Mr Dawson had been removed from his post although he accepted that this had not occurred until 33 days after the Match. 18. The action was wholly out of character for Mr Dawson who had been a magnificent club servant over a great many years. The club had been astonished at what had happened, not least because the position was always going to be discovered. There had been no intention to secure any benefit, neither club were going to go up or down in consequence of the purported result notified to the League Secretary. Indeed by claiming the match had been played the club was depriving itself of the valuable income that would have been derived from a home fixture. The club had considerable community links, and the likely relegation would adversely affect those ties. 19. Mr Murphy questioned whether there could be greater flexibility in the system so that a situation like this could not arise again whereby clubs felt they were compelled to play fixtures even when they had been repeatedly cancelled at great cost. He also asked whether the disciplinary system could be amended to avoid the need for clubs to attend hearings where charges were admitted. 20. Chipping Norton however greatly regretted that the matter had occurred. 21. Mr Harris for Slough similarly did not seek to condone or excuse what had happened. No club committee officials had been present at the time, and he was confident that, had they been, the position would not have arisen. 8

9 22. The committee had convened on 24 February 2016 when both Mr Brown and Mr Dawson had been removed from their posts pending the outcome of these proceedings. Mr Brown has had no contact with the club since that time. 23. Slough is some distance from Chipping Norton and this was the second time they had travelled for a cancelled fixture at considerable cost as coaches has been booked and paid for. The decision, which was plainly wrong, had been taken to try and save further expense, but not to benefit either club's league position. 24. Mr Brown was highly regarded by the club and committed considerable time to both the youth and community sections. 25. Mr Dawson gave evidence in his defence and at the outset indicated that he was deeply sorry for his actions. He was not concerned as to the consequences for his own position but was worried about what would happen to his club. 26. Both teams had wanted to play and had been frustrated at the time and cost of a second cancelled fixture. He had felt for Slough who had to bear the brunt of the costs. He had tried to be clever in suggesting a draw and now realised the folly of his actions. It had however never been about the points and there had been no question of either side going up or down because of the draw claimed. He had resigned from the club and would not be involved with the game for some time to come. 27. Mr Brown similarly spoke on his own behalf. He accepted he had been party to a stupid decision, which he characterised as honourable but naive. He was worried that the clubs, which were run by volunteers, would be forced out of being by the sanction that would now be imposed. He took full responsibility for the decision and had obtained no guidance from elsewhere. He was deeply sorry for his actions which he accepted had been inappropriate. He had already served over a month of suspension having been removed from his coaching post by the club's internal process held on 24 February DECISION 28. This was a difficult matter which clearly had the potential of grave consequences for the clubs and individuals involved all of whom had previously given great service to the game of rugby. 29. The Panel therefore gave very great care to the evidence and submissions in determining the appropriate sanctions to be imposed. 30. Whilst accepting the genuine regret and remorse of all parties, the seriousness of the matter was plain and required condign sanction to reflect that fact. 31. The integrity of the league system, and of the game at large, relies on the honesty and faithfulness of all participants and that is reflected by Regulations requiring that a minimum deduction of 20 league points in the event that deliberately false or misleading information is included on a Match 9

10 Result Card. 32. The Panel carefully considered the RFU's submission that the sanction in this instance ought to more than the minimum guideline sanction to reflect the aggravating features present. 33. The Panel was in agreement with that submission. There had been deliberate collusion involving the participation of a well-regarded referee who had officiated in the game for some 30 years. Ultimately, competitive advantage had been gained. Both teams had claimed a 4 try bonus point when no tries had been scored or even a ball passed. 34. Having regard to those aggravating features and taking into account the available mitigation, which was not insubstantial, and included an early acceptance of wrong doing and no previous similar offending, the Panel determined that the appropriate sanction to be imposed on each club was an immediate deduction of 25 league points. 35. The Panel similarly acceded to the RFU's submission that the culpability of Messrs Dawson, Brown and Hawkins should be viewed as being of the same scale and above that of Mr Bryant. 36. Having regard to all the relevant features of the case, including the mitigation available, the Panel concluded that the sanction to be imposed on Messrs Dawson, Brown and Hawkins would be a suspension of 20 weeks. 37. In contrast, Mr Bryant was suspended for 14 weeks to reflect his lesser culpability. 38. The Panel was required to ensure that the above sanctions were imposed in such a way as to represent a meaningful period of suspension. 39. In undertaking that exercise the Panel had regard to the close season, the differing roles (and thus the differing season periods) for the various individuals and the date on which internal suspensions had been imposed. 40. For those reasons the precise periods of suspension ordered, as set out above at points 5) to 8) inclusive on page 2 of this decision, differ as regards each individual. That is intentional and reflects the nature of the sanctioning exercise that the Panel was required to undertake. 41. The Panel imposed costs orders against both clubs but in the exercise of its discretion was not minded to do so against the individual respondents. APPEAL 42. The parties were advised of their right of appeal as provided for by RFU Regulation 19. Jeremy Summers Chairman 1 April