The Blackett report is out and the Guardian’s Paul Rees has reported that it “cleared” the four England players of allegations of a sexual violation.
According to Mick Cleary in the Telegraph: “Those close to them wanted to go on the offensive to clear their names. Blackett has done it for them.”
The reality is the report does not make a positive finding one way or the other.
David Hands, in a more measured piece in the Times, correctly identified that “Judge Jeff Blackett found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.”
To fully understand the result of the enquiry, it is necessary to read the report in its entirety.
The Judge has said in essence:
1. He has the players’ side of it, and interviewed them, and accepts what they say as “evidence”, even though there was no “rigorous” cross examination. Noting that the (unknown) version of the complainant was read to them and they denied it.
2. He decided not to treat the complainant’s version (either in her solicitors’ letter or on the police job sheet) as “evidence” as he did not interview her, and see her cross examined by the players’ legal representatives, even by video-link.
3. In the circumstances, that left only the players’ versions before him, so he acted on those and ignored the complainant’s version.
It is entirely unsurprising that he has, therefore, found there was no evidence of any criminal conduct.
Without seeing both versions of events tested there is no way anyone could properly make such a finding. It is in fact a “non-finding.”
With due respect to his Honour he may have taken an excessively technical view of the “forensic” process given that he was sitting as a private disciplinary tribunal, not a court of law.
Then again, had he not done so, the players may have taken legal action to restrain the tribunal on the grounds of denial of natural justice in the face of serious allegations of a criminal nature.
So it was probably the only logical course open given the difficulty of trying to find some middle-ground approach which would be open to that criticism.
One thing I strongly agree with was his rejection of the spokesperson’s statements.
He could have rejected them as spin as well as hearsay. So much might be inferred from his other references to her utterances.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
After this weekend there will be five more rounds of Super Rugby Pacific and then the finals. So, let's reflect on the five biggest…
The short weeks are done and dusted, with six more games in the regular season before we head into finals. The Crowd extended their…
The Melbourne Rebels may have traded while insolvent for more than five years, giving rise to potential breach of director duty claims for the…
The ACT Brumbies’ struggles against New Zealand opposition in 2024 has been a shock. The side is heavily laden with Wallabies and has strong…
He was born 1905, 1904 or 1908 according to various reports, in Wairoa, Hawkes Bay, and is remembered as one of the great Māori players.
And then, there were two. The NSW Waratahs and Fijian Drua will meet at Ballymore to decide who lifts the Super Rugby Women's trophy,…
