Former New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns has been found not guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice in his match-fixing trial.
After being cleared of the charges, Cairns described the nine-week trial as “hell”.
“It has not been a victory as such, because in a case like this there are no winners. It’s been hell for everyone involved,” Cairns said.
Cairns was initially accused of match-fixing via Twitter in 2010 by then Indian Premier League chairman Lalit Modi. Cairns sued Modi in over the Tweet in 2012, before the allegations against Cairns escalated in late 2013 when the International Cricket Council confirmed they were investigating several former New Zealand cricketers in relation to match-fixing.
During his 17 years as an international cricketer for New Zealand, Cairns player 215 one-day internationals and 62 Test matches.
Download the app NOW to make sure you never miss a must-see sporting moment.
The Roar TV – it’s your sports video.
Lara
Guest
What's the point , I will be wasting my time.
Johnno
Guest
You tell me the point playmaker?
Playmaker
Guest
You really missed the point didn't you.
Chivas
Guest
Yeah right and OJ is innocent too
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The result has not left me with confidence that Cairns is an innocent man. But based on law I can't complain he was found not guilty.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You do not understand law at all then.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Exactly. Cairns was found not guilty because the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was. Does not mean a witness against him lied under oath. If prosecution witnesses could be taken to trial for perjury after not guilty verdicts, you would never have people willing to be a witness.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No. Being a witness on a trial where the defendant is found not guilty does not mean you have committed perjury.
Wasim Ranamadroota
Roar Pro
St Ricky only said a phone call of unknown content took place. Would be hard to prove that was perjury.
Johnno
Guest
Playmaker How is it tough for all concerned? How is it tough on the lawyers, it's there job and they get a good pay day. Lawyers like it when people encounters legal problems, as they make money out of peoples legal problems, how is that hell for lawyers?
Scuba
Guest
Same as Saint Ricky I suppose
Davo
Guest
That's the whole point Nick. You can't go down the road with a sandwich board accusing somebody of something any more than you can write it on a public forum. And yeah, maybe you are unlikely to be taken to court but that doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it can't happen.
Nick
Guest
Big and brave? What are people supposed to do then if they feel he's obviously guilty and gotten off? Yell it in the street wearing a sandwich board? Forums like these are where people have these conversations, no one is being a keyboard warrior, they're just expressing themselves and even though technically they may be liable it's hardly likely to end up in court
Nate
Guest
I don't think anyone here has stated Cairns was guilty, more questioning how the verdict was reached in light of evidence provided and what that means for the credibility of those who testified.
AJM
Guest
Targa completely nailed it. It's not a matter of McCullum lying or not being believed but in a perjury case without any physical evidence the prosecution need more than one witness. Clearly they've looked at Vincent's evidence as unreliable since he's a self confessed match fixer and a liar. The evidence from Vincent's ex wife was mitigated by the fact it was from a night out while drinking. The prosecution's case was flimsy at best. Without any hard evidence ie. a money trail, a secret recording or a confession, they were always going to battle to prove Cairns' guilt. As a word of warning too, anyone who's big and brave hiding behind their keyboards claiming Cairns is guilty, just be aware that that is libellous. It doesn't really matter what your opinion is, Cairns has been acquitted in a court of law. To suggest otherwise is slanderous and leaves you wide open to a libel case of your own. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Playmaker
Guest
Any court case is hell for all concern.You hope the decision is fair and right. Definitely a tough time for Cairns and his family and Kiwi cricket.
Targa
Guest
With perjury trials you need to consider at least TWO witness reports as reliable. It really came down to 3 witness reports. The stuff like Cairnsy's lawyer Andrew Fitch Holland admitting that Cairns is guilty was inadmissible as was the recorded Skype interview between AFH and Vincent. McCullum was probably seen as a reliable witness and Lou Vincent as unreliable (as a convicted fixer). Lou's ex-wife had no axe to grind against Cairns and isn't with LV anymore but bcos it was evidence from a night of drinking it may not have been valued. The other stuff from all the ex-cricketers about CC was more opinion on what they'd seen. I haven't always been happy with McCullum for his reckless batting and overly aggressive captaincy, but I can't fault him here. I know it took too long but there is something (perhaps wrongly) about not dobbing on mates in NZ sport. There is a lot of dark stuff in cricket and I'm glad that he had the guts to stand up against it. I hope that other whistleblowers in the future won't be scared to step forward.
DCNZ
Guest
I will not be making any comment for legal reasons, but chats with my Kiwi mates today have delivered a unanimous verdict.
Nick
Guest
I doubt it. If you can't prove Cairns is lying how can you prove BMac is?
SP
Guest
So, the 10 or so ex-players who intimated cairns was on the take are all lying? Hard to believe.