RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
COMPETITIONS APPEAL HEARING
At: Holiday Inn, Brighouse
On: Monday 22nd October 2007
JUDGMENT
Club: Gosforth RFC
Date of Match: 8th September 2007
Panel: Mike Hamlin (Chairman), Clif Barker and Peter Rhodes
Attending: Tony Simpson – RFU Communications Officer
Liam McTiernan – RFU Disciplinary Department
Mike Smith – Northern Competitions Committee (Chairman)
Dudley Gibbs – RFU Competitions Sub-Committee
Kingsley Hyland – Solicitor representing Gosforth RFC
Malcolm Stokoe – President of Gosforth
John Short – Former President of Gosforth
Geoff Morrison – Gosforth Duty Officer for 8th September 2007
Neil Jamieson – Former Gosforth President/Acting Chairman
To consider: An appeal by Gosforth RFC in regard to a 2 point deduction and that the match be replayed for an alleged breach of RFU GR 17.1.1 and 17.1.2 on the 8th September 2007.
There were no objections to the composition of the Appeal Panel. There were no preliminary points raised by either Gosforth RFC or the Northern Competitions Committee.
Documents Considered
The Panel has considered:-
1. The RFU Competition appeal bundle prepared by the RFU Disciplinary Department.
2. A copy of IRB Regulation 22.
3. Written Submissions to RFU Appeal Panel by Gosforth RFC, dated 22/10/2007.
4. Letter from Northumberland Rugby Union, dated 13th October 2007.
5. Copy letter from Percy Park, dated 3rd September, to M. Stokoe.
6. Copy Notes, dated 22nd October, from Dudley Gibbs relating to artificial pitches.
7. Regulation 22 Notes.
8. RFU Northern Competitions Committee Summary of Decision relating to the decision appealed against, dated 2nd October 2007.
The Appeal came before the Appeal Panel from the imposition by the RFU Northern Competitions Committee (RFU NCC) as a result of the imposition of a deduction of two league points, in respect of the Appellant, Gosforth RFC for not playing their Durham/Northumberland 1 league game versus Stockton RFC on Saturday 8th September 2007. The deduction of two league points was imposed by the RFU NCC at their meeting on 2nd October 2007 which, according to the summary of their decision, (document 8) took into account the following factors relating to Rule 17.1.2:
(a) Stockton RFC informed Gosforth RFC on the 8th August 2007 that they were not prepared to play the 8th September league game on the artificial pitch at Druids Park.
(b) Stockton RFC confirmed again on 3rd September to Gosforth RFU, Malcolm Bell (Gosforth RFC Fixtures Secretary) that the game would take place at Bullocksteads (non-artificial pitch).
(c) Stockton rang again on 6th September and were informed that the match would take place at Bullocksteads, but the changing facilities would be at Druids Park.
(d) When Stockton RFC arrived at Gosforth RFC on 8th September, expecting to play at Bullocksteads on a non-artificial surface they were informed that Gosforth “felt it necessary to make a stand and would line up with the Referee on the plastic” for a 3:00pm kick off.
(e) Stockton RFC made their way to Bullocksteads, and remained there until 3:05pm when they returned to Druids Park to change.
The RFU NCC decided that Rule 17.1.2 had not been adhered to by Gosforth RFC, and in consequence deducted Gosforth RFC two league points and ordered that the game be played on the first available date.
Gosforth RFC submitted to the Appeal Panel four principle submissions, prepared and set out in the submission documents prepared by Kingsley Hyland on behalf of Gosforth RFC. The principle submissions can be summarised – adopting the Appellants summary of the submissions – as follows:
1. The Club was denied a hearing in breach of Regulation 10.2.3 of the RFU English Club Championship Regulations. This was purportedly in breach of the Rules of natural justice by which RFU sub committees and constituent bodies are bound. The effect of these fundamental breaches was that the purported ruling of the 2nd October should be declared a nullity.
2. The procedure adopted by the Organising Committee of the league denied the Appellant the opportunity of an appeal to the Organising Committee to which representations could have been made. This is a further breach of the Rules of natural justice. It was submitted that the appeal panel should refer the matter back to the Organising Committee to convene a further hearing at which the Club and any other interested party can call evidence and make representations.
3. The finding of the Organising Committee was contrary to the weight of the evidence as there was no breach of Regulation 17.
4. Having regard to the substantial mitigation available (had the Club been afforded the opportunity to advance it – with specific reference to the first and second submissions above) and the alleged inadequacies of Regulation 17 (with reference to the third submission above) that the deduction of two league points was disproportionate. It was submitted as part of the four submissions that if the Club was found to be in breach of Regulation 17, a formal warning and guidance as to how to address the situation should it arise again would have been an adequate and proportionate penalty.
The above four submissions were expanded upon in the detailed written submissions provided by Kingsley Hyland.
Prior to the parties attending the before the appeal panel, the Panel took the opportunity of considering the documentation referred to above in detail and on behalf of the Panel, the Chairman raised a preliminary point concerning the procedure adopted by the RFU NCC following the game which did not take place on 8th September 2007. Having considered the papers, it appeared to the Panel that the League Secretary of the Gosforth/ Northumberland League had not considered the circumstances surrounding the playing of the game on 8th September, and accordingly the first time the matter was considered pursuant to the RFU English Club Championship Regulations was on 2nd October by the Organising Committee. The decision of the RFU NCC on 2nd October is set out above. Following the meeting on 2nd October, the Honourable Secretary to the Northern RFU Competitions Committee, Alan Johnson, wrote to the Appellant to confirm the decision made by the RFU NCC by letter, dated 8th October 2007, wherein inter-alia he stated : “Accordingly the Committee within the powers detailed in the RFU Regulations decided to deduct two championship points and that the match be played on the next available date to be set by the League Secretary. It is the right of any Club to appeal against the decision of the Organising Committee. This should be done direct to the Disciplinary Manager of the RFU within 14 days from the date of the letter informing it of the decision. Such an appeal should be accompanied by a cheque payable to the RFU of £100”.
Upon enquiry from the Chairman on behalf of the Panel, the Chairman of the RFU NCC Michael Smith confirmed as follows:
1. The decision to impose a two point deduction was taken by the Organising Committee on the 2nd October.
2. The League Secretary did not take any part in any disciplinary process or decision making prior to the 2nd October, therefore the first instance decision was that of the Organising Committee.
3. That the procedure and notification of procedure as set out in Alan Johnson’s letter, dated 8th October, was incorrect. The Chairman acknowledged, as the first decision to deduct two points was made by the Organising Committee and not the league Secretary, the Appellant in the first instance had effectively been denied the opportunity of a review of the decision of 2nd October by the Organising Committee pursuant to 10.2.5 of the RFU Game Regulations. On behalf of the RFU, NCC acknowledged that there had been an error in procedure. The error in procedure was that there may have been a technical breach of Game Regulation 10.2.3 relating to the failure of the alleged breach being notified to the Appellant within the appropriate time limit, and that consequently the Appellant had not had the opportunity to submit evidence and to respond to the alleged breach. The League Secretary did not make a ruling. The Committee made a ruling. In making its decision it was possible that the Committee did not consider any representations written or oral from Gosforth prior to reaching a decision.
4. Furthermore, as a result of the potential alleged breach procedure by the Committee, the Appellant was denied the option of a review by the Organising Committee, pursuant to Game Regulation 10.2.5. In the letter dated 8th October from the Secretary of the RFU NCC to the Appellant, the Appellant was advised of the right to appeal to the RFU. Game Regulation 10.2.5 provides: “If a Club or Player (in respect of 10.2.3 above), or either party to the complaint or dispute or any other person or Club (in respect of 10.2.4 above) is dissatisfied with any ruling made under Game Regulations 10.2.3 or 10.2.4 above there should be a right to request a review of the decision. (a) In league competitions, a right to request a review shall lie from the league Secretary to the Organising Committee;”.
10.2.6 Sets out the requirements which are to be met if there is to be a review. In this instance the Appellant was directed to appeal to the RFU. The Appellant was not directed to request a review, pursuant to 10.2.6. The appeal panel were of the preliminary view without hearing further detailed oral submissions, but having considered the papers that the Appellant had not had:
(a) The opportunity to be heard in respect of the original alleged breach;
(b) Had not had the opportunity of being heard or making representations in respect of the decision made by the Organising Committee on the 2nd October; and
(c) Had been instructed in a letter of 8th October to “appeal against the decision”. The consequence of this was that the Appellant had pursuant to 10.2.6 been deprived of the right to a review of the Organising Committee’s decision.
The Panel were also mindful of the fact that there was no further appeal from the panel’s decision. Whilst the Appellant still had the opportunity to make submissions before the panel the opportunity may have been lost, both before the League Secretary and/or the Organising Committee under the normal procedure process.
Upon that basis and without making any findings of fact, the parties to the appeal were invited to consider whether or not it was appropriate for the matter before the Panel to proceed by way of full appeal, particularly bearing in mind the concession made by the Chairman of the RFU NCC that there had been a breach in procedure. The issue was of significant importance before the panel, and the fact that in the interests of natural justice the issues should be considered in the first instance by the Organising Committee under the review procedure with either party then having the right to appeal under 10.2.10 to the RFU Panel; which includes not only the parties before the Panel but any other party having an interest in the review process undertaken by the Organising Committee.
The parties to the appeal withdrew to consider the position.
At the resumption of the hearing the parties had agreed that in view of the importance of the issue and the apparent defect in procedure which had occurred that in the interests of justice, bearing in mind the parties rights of appeal, and also in the interest of the game generally, that the matter should proceed by way of review by the Organising Committee pursuant to Game Regulation 10.2.5. The Panel, in the circumstances and having considered the matter further, agreed that this was, on balance and taking into account the overall provisions of point 10.1.1 to 10.4.2; the fairest way of proceeding. The Panel therefore concluded that the matter should be referred back to the Organising Committee and the Panel recorded for the purpose of the hearing:
1. That it was conceded on behalf of the RFU NCC there had been, subject to findings of fact, an apparent breach of procedure pursuant to 10.2.3.
2. That the issue before the Panel would be heard at the earliest opportunity by the RFU NCC pursuant to the review regulations under Game Regulation 10.2.5. Under the review procedure of 10.2.5 the Appellant would be entitled to make such representations necessary for the Organising Committee to review the original decision.
3. That it be recorded that the Appellant had been prime facie denied as a result of the procedural irregularity, a fair hearing pursuant to 10.2.5.
4. That pending the outcome of the review by the Organising Committee the decision to deduct two points from the Appellant in the interim would be set aside.
5. That the requirement for the game to be replayed would remain.
COSTS
The Panel makes no award of costs in the circumstances, save that the £100 paid by the Appellant would be returned to them pending the review by the Organising Committee.
RIGHT OF APPEAL
On the basis that the parties agreed to the review by the Organising Committee, neither party had any right of appeal against this decision.
Signed: Mike Hamlin (Chairman)
Dated: 25th October 2007 |
