Rugby Football Union. Independent Competitions Hearing. Old Dunstonians RFC. Lee Smith. Julian "Fred" Platford. Andrew Lidstone

Transcription

1 Rugby Football Union Independent Competitions Hearing Held at: The Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, London. On: 12 September IN THE MATTER OF: Old Dunstonians RFC Lee Smith Julian "Fred" Platford Andrew Lidstone Panel: Jeremy Summers (Chairman), Robert Horner and Bonike Erinle ("the Panel") Secretary: Rebecca Morgan In Attendance: For Old Dunstonians RFC: James Couser, Counsel (for the club, Mr Platford and Mr Lidstone) Mike Rogers, President Mr Smith, former 1st XV player and coach; Mr Platford, Hon. Secretary Mr Lidstone, former Treasurer For the RFU Stuart Tennant, presenting Paul Astbury, RFU Competitions Committee 1

2 1. Decision 1.1 Old Dunstonians RFC ("the Club") (a) The Club was made the subject of an immediate deduction of fifteen (15) league points; (b) The Club was issued with a severe reprimand; and (c) The Club was ordered to pay fixed costs of Mr Smith (a) (b) Charge 1 against Mr Smith was dismissed; In respect of charge 2, Mr Smith was suspended from any involvement in the game of rugby (to include without limitation playing, coaching and administration) for a period of seven months; (c) The period of suspension was imposed to run from 11 May 2016 until 11 December He may accordingly resume his involvement with the game on 12 December 2016; (d) Mr Smith was issued with a severe reprimand; and (e) Mr Smith was ordered to pay fixed costs of Mr Platford (a) (b) Charge 1 against Mr Platford was dismissed; In respect of charge 2, Mr Platford was suspended from any involvement in the game of rugby (to include without limitation playing, coaching and administration) for a period of eight months; (c) The period of suspension was imposed to run from 11 May 2016 until 11 January He may accordingly resume his involvement with the game on 12 January 2017; and (d) Mr Platford was issued with a severe reprimand; and (e) Mr Platford was ordered to pay fixed costs of Mr Lidstone (a) The charge against Mr Lidstone was dismissed. 2

3 2. The Charges The Charge Sheet raised by the RFU alleged: OLD DUNSTONIANS RFC are charged as follows: STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Provision of Material Benefits to Players for participation in the Game contrary to RFU Regulation 7.2 and RFU Rule PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE From 2011/12 to date, Old Dunstonians RFC have paid Material Benefits to Players for participation in the Game as follows: 1. As set out in the Schedule of Dial-A-Flight receipts (Exhibit PA/12) and in the Club accounts (for seasons 2011/12 to 2014/15) under an entry for Overseas Players, Old Dunstonians RFC paid for air fares to and/or from the UK for Players; 2. Air fares to and/or from the UK (paid for by any Club or Sponsor) are Material Benefits as defined in RFU Regulation 1 (and in the RFU Guidance Notes appended to the RFU Adult Player Registration Form); 3. No contracts for such benefits and approval from the RFU has been agreed with Old Dunstonians RFC; and 4. Under the UK Immigration Rules (set out by the RFU in the RFU Visa/Permit Eligibility Grid), any Player possessing a Tier 5 Youth Mobility visa (Working Holiday Visa) cannot work as a professional sportsman and therefore can only participate in the Game as an amateur and cannot receive Material Benefits. LEE SMITH is charged as follows: CHARGE 1 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Provision of Material Benefits to Players for participation in the Game, contrary to RFU Regulation 7.2 and RFU Rule PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE With reference to the Schedule of Dial-A-Flight receipts (Exhibit PA/12), from 3 August 2012 to 24 December 2015, Lee Smith was responsible for paying for flights for Players totalling 4,097 on his personal debit card. Air fares to and/or from the UK are Material Benefits as defined in RFU Regulation 1 (and in the RFU Guidance Notes appended to the RFU Adult Player Registration Form). 3

4 CHARGE 2 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Provision of inaccurate, false or misleading information contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and and RFU Rule PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lee Smith was aware of Old Dunstonians RFC s payments of Material Benefits to Players but misled the RFU as follows: 1. During a meeting on 22 March 2016 with Paul Astbury, London Divisional Organising Committee member, Lee Smith denied that Old Dunstonians RFC had paid Material Benefits to Players; 2. On 15 April 2016, Lee Smith sent a signed pro forma declaration stating that no Old Dunstonians RFC players had been in receipt of Material Benefits; 3. On 11 May 2016, the RFU was notified by Mike Rogers, President of Old Dunstonians RFC, that the Club may have misled the RFU in relation to the payment of Material Benefits to Players; 4. On 12 May 2016, Lee Smith admitted to Paul Astbury, London Divisional Organising Committee member, that he had provided inaccurate, false and misleading information regarding the payment of Material Benefits to Players at Old Dunstonians RFC; and 5. By virtue of a signed statement dated 12 May 2016 (contained in the bundle), Lee Smith admits that Old Dunstonians RFC have paid Material Benefits to Players. By failing to act towards the RFU with the utmost good faith and cooperate with the RFU disciplinary investigation, such conduct was prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game. JULIAN FRED PLATFORD is charged as follows: CHARGE 1 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Provision of Material Benefits to Players for participation in the Game, contrary to RFU Regulation 7.2 and RFU Rule PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE With reference to the Schedule of Dial-A-Flight receipts (Exhibit PA/12), from 23 June 2015 to 23 November 2015, Julian Fred Platford was responsible for paying for flights for Players totalling 4,491 on his personal credit card. Air fares to and/or from the UK are Material Benefits as defined in RFU Regulation 1 (and in the RFU Guidance Notes appended to the RFU Adult Player Registration Form). 4

5 CHARGE 2 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Provision of inaccurate, false or misleading information contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and and RFU Rule PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Julian Fred Platford was aware of Old Dunstonians RFC s payments of Material Benefits to Players but misled the RFU as follows: 1. During a meeting on 22 March 2016 with Paul Astbury, London Divisional Organising Committee member, Julian Fred Platford denied that Old Dunstonians RFC had paid Material Benefits to Players; 2. On 14 April 2016, Julian Fred Platford agreed by the content of the pro forma declaration stating that no Old Dunstonians RFC players are in receipt of Material Benefits; 3. On 11 May 2016, the RFU was notified by Mike Rogers, President of Old Dunstonians RFC, that the Club may have misled the RFU in relation to the payment of Material Benefits to Players; 4. On 23 May 2016 and 15 June 2016, Julian Fred Platford admitted to Paul Astbury, London Divisional Organising Committee member, that he had provided inaccurate, false and misleading information regarding the payment of Material Benefits to Players at Old Dunstonians RFC; and 5. By virtue of a signed statement dated 12 May 2016 (contained in the bundle), Julian Fred Platford admits that Old Dunstonians RFC have paid Material Benefits to Players. By failing to act towards the RFU with the utmost good faith and cooperate with the RFU disciplinary investigation, such conduct was prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game. ANDY LIDSTONE is charged as follows: STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Provision of Material Benefits to Players for participation in the Game, contrary to RFU Regulation 7.2 and RFU Rule PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE With reference to the Schedule of Dial-A-Flight receipts (Exhibit PA/12), from 2 August 2012 to 17 June 2014, Andy Lidstone was responsible for paying for flights for Players totalling 5,692 on his personal bank card. Air fares to and/or from the UK are Material Benefits as defined in RFU Regulation 1 (and in the RFU Guidance Notes appended to the RFU Adult Player Registration Form). 5

6 3. Preliminary Issues and Ruling. 3.1 There was no objection to the composition of the Panel. 3.2 This matter involved serious allegations against all those charged and the Panel was urged by the RFU to impose condign sanctions accordingly. 3.3 In advance of the hearing the Panel however became concerned that certain of the charges brought had been drafted erroneously and that, in those instances, no offence had been made out. 3.4 In issue was the fact that the RFU had elected to allege a breach of RFU Regulation 7.2 which provides as follows: Contracts for Participation No person involved in the Game may receive (emphasis added) Material Benefit for participation in the Game unless the contract for such benefit is first approved by the RFU in accordance with World Rugby Regulation 4. Note: See Regulation 4.5 of the World Rugby Regulations relating to the Game and the RFU s Player Registration Regulations for certain sanctions for non-compliance with this Regulation The difficulties which the Panel faced, and which arose as a result of the RFU having proceeded under Regulation 7.2, were as follows: (a) (b) (c) None of the parties charged had received a material benefit. The mischief that arises when players are in receipt of a Material Benefit, and which RFU Regulations seek to sanction, is the playing of players who are, by reason of being in receipt of a Material Benefit, not Effectively Registered as required by RFU Regulation 14. The Material Benefit alleged was the payment of airfares to and from the UK. The payment of an airfare for a player in another country in order to bring him to the UK could not, of itself, be a breach of regulations because, at the time the payment was made, it was open to the club to register him under a contract for such benefit, with such contract to be approved by the RFU. The breach of Regulation occurs when the player is registered as an amateur and the registration form contains a false declaration. This breach cannot be attributed to the person who paid for the airfare. 3.6 Of significance, in Medway (2016) 1 which, in effect, is currently the leading RFU authority in this area, the RFU charged all concerned with offences in breach of RFU Regulation 14, and related Regulations, all concerning the playing of players who were not Effectively Registered. Notably, notwithstanding that there were 15 separate charges in Medway, none alleged a breach of Regulation The Panel had notified the parties of their concerns prior to the hearing and asked that they be dealt with by way of a Preliminary Issue. In the event, that indication had not reached Mr Couser, and he was accordingly given time to take instructions and advise before being asked to make such submissions as he wished. 1 Two members of this Panel also sat on the Medway case. 6

7 3.8 On behalf of the RFU Mr Tennant accepted that no offence had arisen as against any of those charged pursuant to RFU Regulation 7.2, but submitted that the charges concerned could in any event proceed by virtue of having also been charged under RFU Rule 5.12, the operative part of which for the purposes of his submissions provides: and/or for any conduct which is prejudicial to the interests of the Union or the Game or which amounts to cheating. 3.9 On further analysis of that position with the Panel, Mr Tennant conceded that the difficulty he faced in advancing that submission was that the evidence before the Panel was limited to players selected in a single league fixture that the Club had played on 5 March 2016 against Park House RFC in London 3 SE Whilst there was evidence clearly suggesting that the Club had paid Material Benefits to multiple players and over many years, the consequence of proceeding (incorrectly as was now accepted) under Regulation 7.2 was that there was no evidence before the Panel establishing that particular players had played in particular games and without being Effectively Registered. In stark contrast, this had been clearly, and comprehensively, established by the evidence adduced in Medway Mr Tennant accepted that he was hampered by the deficiency in the evidence as identified by the Panel. He therefore asked that the matter was adjourned, at least in part, to rectify the position although in his submission the evidence available in relation to the Park House game did allow the Panel to proceed on that limited footing under a breach of RFU Rule In response Mr Couser candidly indicated he had not previously spotted the point raised by the Panel but (understandably) now wished to rely upon it. He opposed the RFU's application for an adjournment noting that the matter had arisen many months ago and that those charged 2 ought not to be penalised for the deficiencies now apparent in the RFU case Those he represented had previously submitted an indication in writing that the charges would not be contested and he requested leave for his clients to withdraw from that position. He though agreed with the Panel's analysis of the position as regards the Club and a breach of Rule He accordingly indicated that, if the Panel were minded to proceed on that limited basis, the Club would accept the charge The Panel retired to consider the position in private, and had well in mind the duty imposed upon it to discharge its obligations fairly and in accordance with due process. The Panel had no doubt, and indeed none of those charged challenged this, that significant irregularities had occurred at the Club over a lengthy period of time The RFU had conceded that it could not proceed under Regulation 7.2, no offence having been committed under that Regulation and sought time to rectify the failings in the case as then advanced through the submission of further evidence The Panel concluded that there had been clear deficiencies in the way in which the RFU had brought its case. It had been open to the RFU to prosecute the case by reference to the regulatory breaches alleged in Medway and, had that happened, the Panel had little doubt that a comparable outcome in terms of sanction would have resulted No reason was advanced as to why the Medway approach had not been adopted and the Panel was unable to determine any rational reason for the divergence, not least in that it had 2 Mr Couser was not instructed on behalf of Mr Smith, but fairly submitted that the argument, if accepted, ought reasonably to also benefit him. 7

8 resulted in incorrect charges being laid, and evidence which should properly have been before the Panel, not being made available The Panel gave very careful consideration to the RFU s application for an adjournment in order to rectify the position. It however came to the regrettable conclusion that the extent of the failings, and the delay already occasioned in bringing the matter before a panel, were such that a further adjournment and reframing of the case could not fairly be permitted In all the circumstances the Panel ruled that all charges alleging a breach of Regulation 7.2 were defective in that none of the parties charged had received a Material Benefit. The consequence of that ruling was as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) As against the Club, the charge could only proceed in relation to a breach of Rule 5.12 on the limited basis set out above. The charges headed Charge 1 against Mr Smith and Mr Platford would be dismissed. The single charge against Mr Lidstone would be dismissed. 4. Pleas 4.1 All parties confirmed that they accepted the charges remaining before the Panel. 4.2 Mr Rogers, as President of the Club, confirmed his agreement to the revised piea. 5. The Available Evidence 5.1 Mr Tennant opened the case as it remained for the RFU. He directed the Panel to evidence in the hearing bundle which he suggested established that two players who had played against Park House RFC on 5 March could be shown to have had their air fares to the UK paid for by or on behalf of the Club. As such those players were in receipt of a Material Benefit which rendered any Effective Registration invalid and they were thus ineligible to have played in the match Neither of the two players concerned had secured an approved contract and had no permission to play in the UK. The RFU accepted that any sanction would have to be referable only to those two players. Mr Tennant however reminded the Panel that sanction for an offence contrary to Rule 5.12 was at large although assistance might be found in the guidance provided at Appendix 1 to RFU Regulation In his submission there were aggravating features present that would entitle the Panel to increase any sanction that it might otherwise have imposed upon the Club. In this respect he pointed to the large number other players that it appeared had been improperly played by the Club and to the fact that the RFU s investigation had been hampered and delayed through the submission of false declarations given by Club officials. 5.4 With reference to Mr Smith and Mr Platford, he took the Panel to the declarations signed by both individuals that positively averred that no Club player had received a Material Benefit and set out the relevant regulations in detail. Those declarations were signed in March Whilst the RFU was, eventually, informed that those declarations were false in May 2016, it was likely that this correction had been made as a result of a falling out between the parties 3 It was likely that four further players selected that day had similarly had been flown to the UK at the expense of the Club, but evidence was not before the Panel to establish that as a fact. 8

9 rather than as a result of any overt act of contrition. In any event the false declarations had significantly hindered the RFU investigation, which in Mr Tennant s submission should be viewed as an aggravating feature. 6. Mitigation 6.1 Mr Couser addressed the Panel on the Club's history and its current financial position which was parlous. He also put on record the Club's appreciation for all that Mr Smith had done for the Club over many years. 6.2 On behalf of the Club, he relied upon the guilty plea, which in his submission should see the Club obtain the maximum amount of credit. 6.3 He did not dispute that something untoward had occurred over a lengthy period but submitted that this had resulted from poor corporate governance rather than an intention to flout RFU Regulations. As such he urged the Panel to reject the RFU's submission that there should be an aggravated sanction. 6.4 In Mr Couser's submission, whilst two ineligible players had been played on 5 March 2016, only a single penalty should be imposed. In this respect he referred to the Medway decision at paragraph 5.10, which itself referred to this approach having been adopted previously. 6.5 Mr Couser urged that a financial penalty should not be imposed upon the Club. In consequence of this matter the Club had only been able to undertake limited fund raising activities this year, and there was an appreciable risk that a fine could force the club out of existence. This would also impact on other bodies that used the Club's facilities. 6.6 In summary he submitted that the Club should be subject to no more than a deduction of 5 league points, submitting that the Club had acted in ignorance rather than malice, suggesting that the Club and the game at large had not really appreciated the ambit and effect of the Regulations prior to the Medway decision. 6.7 Mr Platford had been associated with the Club for 30 years both as player and administrator. He had been Hon Secretary for 10 years before voluntarily stepping aside from that role on 11 May 2016 pending the determination of these proceedings. 6.8 It was not disputed that Mr Platford could have been more candid. However on the precise facts, whilst Mr Platford's declaration was unhelpful it was not in fact untruthful. He had paid 1500 to cover airfares which he now accepted he would not recover. This therefore should be viewed as some form of penalty in itself. In his submission the suspension imposed should take into account what might be viewed as "time served" by Mr Platford having stood down in May 2016, and that accordingly no further period of suspension should be imposed. Mr Couser also urged that Mr Smith should not be suspended from playing. 6.9 Mr Smith had been with the Club for some 22 years playing over 600 games and coaching the 1st XV for the past 5 years. His wife and son had also been heavily involved with the Club. As a result of this matter he has left the Club and stated that he would never coach again He had only ever acted in what he had believed were the best interests of the Club, and had not realised, until the Medway decision, that paying for air fares constituted a Material Benefit and was in breach of RFU Regulations. He had signed the declaration, which he accepted was false, out of a desire only to protect the Club from punishment. He too urged the Panel not to impose a sanction that would prevent him from playing. 9

10 7. Findings 7.1 In view of the seriousness of the matter and the potential consequences, the Panel gave the most careful consideration to all the evidence and submissions before them. Having done so the Panel was satisfied to the standard required that: (a) Two ineligible players had played in the game against Park House RFC on 5 March (b) (c) (d) It was likely, but could not be established by evidence, that other ineligible players had played in the Park House fixture; It was likely, but could not be established by evidence, that many other ineligible players had been played or selected by the Club over a number of years; and On their own admission, Mr Smith and Mr Platford had submitted false and misleading declarations the RFU. 8. Decision 8.1 In light of those findings, the Panel imposed the sanctions as set out at section 1 above. 8.2 With regard to the sanction imposed on the Club, the Panel concluded that in the exercise of the discretion it had as to sanctioning a breach of RFU Rule 5.12, it was proportionate and appropriate to impose a deduction of 5 league points for each of the ineligible players played in 5 March 2016 and then to increase that sanction to reflect the overall background to the offending, which the Panel viewed as an aggravating feature. 8.3 The submission of false declarations by Messrs Platford and Smith could only be viewed as an egregious offence that necessitated their immediate removal from any involvement with the game. 8.4 In the Panel's view those suspensions should in all the circumstances run for 8 and 7 months respectively 8.5 The increased length of the sanction imposed on Mr Platford reflects the fact that he was the Cub's Hon. Secretary and therefore a senior club officer. Included within his duties would have been the responsibility, even if only by way of oversight, for ensuring compliance with all relevant regulations, including those pertaining to player registration. The submission that Mr Platford should receive a "time served" suspension was rejected. 9. Appeal 9.1 The parties were advised of the right of appeal provided by the Regulations. 10. Comment 10.1 This decision should be regarded as an exceptional decision on the specific issues that arose Whilst the failings identified were unfortunate, the Panel is wholly confident that this position will not arise again in the future. 10

11 10.3 Without the failings identified, the sanctions imposed would have been significantly more severe. The playing of ineligible players offends the integrity of the league structure and the game at large As such all players, administrators and clubs within the game should be in no doubt that RFU Disciplinary Panels can and will impose significant sanctions when this is required The Panel understands that the use of the declaration referred to above at paragraph 5.4 had not been relied upon previously and had been specifically drafted for this matter. The Panel commends that course of action. It was drafted carefully to underscore the seriousness of playing players who are in receipt of Material Benefits The draft form of declaration is accordingly attached as Appendix 1 to the judgment, again so that the game at large can be in no doubt that player registration regulations will be rigorously enforced and, if breached, are likely to result in substantial sanctions being imposed on all those concerned. Jeremy Summers Chairman. 16 September

12 Appendix 1 Pro Forma Declaration Further to our meeting with Paul Astbury, London & SE Division on 22nd March. On behalf of Old Dunstonians RFC, I/we confirm that none of our players are in receipt of material benefit as outlined in the Guidance Notes of the registration form or according to the RFU definition. (Both copied below). This statement is true and is applicable to all our registered players throughout their association with the club. NOTES FOR AMATEUR PLAYER - CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AMATEUR STATUS For the purpose of playing Rugby Union in England, the following are examples of what will be classed as material benefit, which if given to the player, will remove his amateur status: 1. Payment either directly or indirectly which is conditional on playing for the club; 2. Free accommodation/house of any kind from the club or Sponsor; 3. Air fare to and from UK was paid for by the club or Sponsor; 4. A complimentary car from the club or Sponsor. Note: For the full definition of what constitutes a material benefit, please see the Definition of Material Benefit in RFU Regulation In the event that any amateur status information is not correct, and if the player is not an EU/UK citizen, you will be in breach of the UK immigration Law and the player may be deported, or if the player is an EU/UK citizen and is receiving illegal payments, you will be in breach of UK Law and may be reported by the Inland Revenue. The Rugby Football Union, in the case of incorrect information, may suspend your Player Registration. MATERIAL BENEFIT Money, consideration, gifts or any other benefits whatsoever contracted, promised or given to a person or at his direction, but does not include reimbursement of proper expenses incurred for reasonable travel, accommodation, subsistence or other expenses incurred in relation to the Game and as particularised in RFU Regulation 7.3 Signed Position in club... Date 12