Graeme Mew, the IRB Commissioner looking into the IRB’s bizarre appeal in the James Horwill disciplinary case, has come to the right decision regarding the original decision taken by the New Zealand QC, Nigel Hampton.
Horwill is free to play against the Lions in the upcoming third Test.
>> Breaking: James Horwill cleared
But he has let the IRB and people involved with the British and Irish Lions franchise off the hook by suggesting that the IRB appeal against a detailed and thorough finding of Horwill ‘not guilty’ by one of its own commissioners was somehow ‘properly taken.’
The IRB’s decision to appeal against the finding on Horwill was improper.
It was done without any evidence being presented to the public that the original decision was wrong. Misinformation was presented to give the appearance of balance on the part of the IRB.
We also do not know who actually decided to make the appeal. We do not know what the grounds for the appeal was.
We also do not know what involvement the Lions camp had in this affair, other than the statement that there was no ‘official’ Lions involvement (whatever that means?) in pushing the case against Horwill.
The IRB, too, when announcing the appeal against the original decision made a point of insisting that the Independent Appeal Officer Graeme Mew was a ‘Canadian.’
It is clear why this designation was made. It was to show that there was no British and Irish bias in the appointment. But as a writer on The Roar has pointed out, Mew is an Englishman who was educated at Kingston University in England, is a member of the England and Wales bar, who practices in Canada and England.
Lawyers who I’ve been in contact with me tell me that the entire re-appeal process denied ‘natural justice’ to Horwill. It was a shonky exercise right from its beginning.
The attack on Horwill had nothing to do with cleaning up rugby. We know this because the IRB was mute about Owen Farrell’s stomping of Ben Lucas in the Reds – Lions game.
The Lions camp identified Horwill as a key forward for the Wallabies. They seized on an unfortunate incident to get him out of the series, starting with the crucial second Test. They pushed the IRB (who have never identified themselves as being part of the process) to attempt to get Horwill out of the third Test when the original complaint failed.
The British rugby media was briefed on the line to take and starting with Stuart Barnes down they accepted the bait and fell on Horwill like a pack of snarling hounds. This attack on Horwill from the media was then translated into an attack by the Lions supporters who booed Horwill viciously throughout the Melbourne Test.
The IRB’s official statement on the Horwill Appeal Decision ends: ‘The IRB will be making no further comment on the case.’
This is an affront to James Horwill, the ARU, to Wallaby supporters and all the other stakeholders in the game of rugby throughout the world.
The IRB processes should not be used to promote the interests of a particular team – be they Lions, All Blacks, Wallabies, or any other.
The Board of the ARU must now show steel. It needs to demand a full and open account of all the dealings involved with the Horwill affair. We need the names and the details of the men who put their own interests ahead of the interests of the game.
And when these details and facts are established, these men need to be told they have no place in the running of the game.
Does the ARU Board have the guts to defend the reputation of the Wallaby captain and the interests of Australian rugby?
|Volstruisboer
Guest
The IRB appealed the initial decision. There is no question of a re-appeal, as alleged. That would imply that there was a hearing, an appeal and then a further appeal - not so? An appeal is not directed at a re-hearing with fresh evidence; that would be a re-trial, not an appeal. The very word "Appeal" means exactly that; one is seeking a reconsideration of the matter, upon the same facts already presented. Any appeal is thus directed at a reconsideration of the matter. It is premised upon the contention that the initial arbiter erred either in law or in fact. This means that the initial arbiter either interpreted or implemented the law incorrectly or that he made an incorrect factual finding on the evidence. For an appeal to succeed the appeal arbiters will have to be satisfied that the initial arbiter erred as aforesaid. They will then be at liberty to draw their own conclusion based on precisely the same facts and evidence previously presented. There is no question of fresh evidence. Come on people, this is an every day occurrence. When litigants are dissatisfied with a decision they are entitled to seek to appeal that decision. It happens in both civil and criminal matters all the time. Why the gig squeal now? I personally believe that the initial arbiter got it wrong, as did the appeal tribunal. The evidence, to me, is clear enough, as is the law. The question ought never to have been whether there was evidence upon which an arbiter could acquit. It should have been whether the evidence alone could, on a balance of probablility, sustain a conviction of this nature. This is a civil matter and thus the onus of proof is not one of beyond reasonable doubt, but on a balance of probablility.
HM
Guest
60 seconds of searching finds me suspensions totalling at least half of one calender year. He must be the unluckiest good Christian boy since JC himself.
Wal
Roar Guru
For a group supporters who some don't want scrums and apparently think unless you are 60kg 5'10 with Gel in your hair and finish the game with no mud on your jumper, you shouldn't be allowed to play rugby. They are up in arms about this one. And some of the comments here would be just as at home on a X-File Forum. But Bakkies is perhaps not quite the poster boy for fair play to hang our hat on. Most teams have them a player that oversteps the mark in the pursuit of aggression, NZ was Richard Loe, Aust Michael Brial. I bet the same guys that pillared Bakkies are the ones who defended Higginbotham or Cooper for their actions against McCaw
Wal
Roar Guru
Yes if you cycle on a footpath and injure someone you will be found to cause reckless endangerment. Likewise if you operate a vehicle in a manner that is not deemed cautious enough for the circumstances i.e. below the speed limit but to fast for the conditions, then you will also be charged
Nick
Guest
Cicero who is often cited as a philosophical founder of natural justice once said, if a man is always saying "no, I'm completely correct" said man is a giant dunce.
Wal
Roar Guru
Me too, the bottom line is he made contact with another players head. I am a big Horwill fan and don't for a second believe him to be a dirty player. But even accidental contact with the head needs to investigated and sometimes a punishment is necessary. The reflex action of sticking your arm out when off balance results in a ban if you take someones head off. Not looking where you stick your feet in a ruck and connecting with a blokes eye isn't that far removed. As far as the final outcome I am happy to sit on the fence, it was pretty innocuous but still could have resulted in a serious injury. It was handled much better than Adam Thomson with Gosper tweeting about the appeal after pressure from Journo's. I was also happy with the final outcome there to as Thomson deserved longer.
Wal
Roar Guru
I remember a quote from Andrew Mehrtens saying the silence from a Welsh crowd was far more off putting that 80,000 boos. I
Steve
Guest
Ridiculous analysis followed by a non-sequitur. ZG is precisely correct. In any event, there are always 2 parts to consider in any so-called 'criminal' matter: the thought and the action. Was there intent? If not, unless recklessness or negligence are relevant elements to establishing some lesser degree of culpability, no offence will have been committed.
Neil
Guest
Maybe it's time for the Lions to limit their tours to real rugby countries like New Zealand and South Africa............
Neil
Guest
jutsie if what was done by Horwill was done to an Australian player by a Lion there would be uproar. It looked bad and he should have been suspended. Simple as that. I'd like to see your head under that boot and see how you felt about it and a "little cut". Not best pleased I'm sure
Matthew Skellett
Guest
The IRB 'come clean' ? after centuries of tomb-like secrecy ? C'mon you serious ? Of course that would be very quickly solved by making the system one country-one vote so are you advocating that Spiro ? I doubt it :-)
Archer
Guest
By your definition I'm reckless every time I drive a car, operate heavy machinery or cycle on the foot path. Bit wide isn't it? To cause injury with a weapon is beyond reckless it's criminal and subject to sanction whatever the result, intention only comes in to determine the level of sanction.
2089
Guest
Half a brain is about right!
2089
Guest
Well there are other explanations. Just because you can't find it or they're outside the realms of your experience doesn't mean they don't exist, aren't plausible or aren't scientific.
2089
Guest
Mate, I suggest you try a sport like Judo or Jiu jitsu where you're often finding your balance to get an idea of how quickly and awkwardly you'll move your legs/feet to regain said balance. People with more experience of human movement have reviewed it and it's obvious that it's accidental.
Zero Gain
Guest
In law reckless means that although your intention is not to cause damage, you are aware of the possible damaging consequences of what you are doing but proceed anyway. Accidental means that you are not aware of any damage your actions may cause. For example, if I aim carefully and shot a gun in a mall to kill a stray cat whilst people are in the mall, and I end up shooting a person, without intending to, then my action may be described as reckless. If the mall is cleared of people before I shoot but the bullet goes through a wall and hits a person inside a shop, then it is an accident. So if Horwell knew his head was there, but rucked anyway in the knowlege he could get his face, even though his main intention was to push at the ruck, he could be described as reckless. If he had no idea that the player was there, and was off balance and trying to re-balance himself when contact occurred, then it was an accident.
Zero Gain
Guest
The case against him was presented in full at the hearing and he had the opportunity tro respond to it. Obviously he did as he was exonerated.
Zero Gain
Guest
No, my formulation of natural justice is completely correct. Reasons for a decision are only required if a statutory provision says so, it is not a requirement of the core principle of natural justice to provide reasons. You are incorrect.
Zero Gain
Guest
The term 'natural justice' and 'procedural fairness' are interchangable. i.e. they mean exactly the same thing. He received procedural fairness. Get it now?
2089
Guest
Lucky that it wasn't handled by Kangaroo Courts like this one?