RFU APPEAL PANEL RELATING TO (1) PETER RANN; (2) MEDWAY RFC. Attendance: Simon Pritchard on behalf of Mr Peter Rann (present) and Medway

Transcription

1 RFU APPEAL PANEL RELATING TO (1) PETER RANN; (2) MEDWAY RFC Venue: Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, London Date of hearing: Thursday 24 th March 2016 Panel: Sir James Dingemans; Mike Curling; John Vale Attendance: Simon Pritchard on behalf of Mr Peter Rann (present) and Medway RFC (with Ian Dance and Tracy Bullock also present); Richard Smith QC on behalf of the RFU (with Gerard McEvilly and Stuart Tennant also present); Mike Cordell (RFU Council Member for Kent) and Paul Astbury (RFU Competitions Committee) observing. Introduction 1. This is a judgment in respect of an appeal to the Appeal Panel (Sir James Dingemans, Mike Curling and John Vale) which took place in the evening of Thursday 24 th March The appeal was brought by Peter Rann ( Mr Rann ), the Honorary Secretary of Medway RFC, and by Medway RFC, against sanctions imposed on them by a RFU Independent Competition Hearing panel (Jeremy Summers, Robert Horner and Aidan O Brien) the Competition Hearing panel on 21 st January At the end of the evening we announced our decision which was to the effect that the appeals would be dismissed save that the final month of the prohibition of Mr Rann from involvement with the Club would be suspended for the season , and that the 25 league points deducted for next season from Medway RFC would be suspended for the season

2 2. The circumstances giving rise to the sanctions were that Mr Rann, as Honorary Secretary of Medway RFC, had provided false information on the RFU Adult Player Registration Forms: for Fred Tila, an Australian national, on 3 rd September 2014 and on 4 th August 2014; for Matthew Gardiner, a New Zealand national, on 14 th and 15 th October 2015; and for James Rutherford, a New Zealand national, on 3 rd and 6 th October The false information was that the players were amateur when they were in receipt of material benefits from Medway RFC. The material benefits were air fares, accommodation and payment of expenses. In respect of Meto Mataapa, a New Zealand national, Mr Rann had failed to notify the RFU of a change of circumstance, namely that Meto Mataapa would receive material benefits from Medway RFC. 3. Section 12 of the RFU Adult Player Registration Form, which is on the back of the registration form, makes it plain that material benefits include: payment either directly or indirectly which is conditional on playing for the club ; free accommodation ; and air fare. It is not permissible to pay material benefits to players who are registered as amateurs. 4. The players were registered and played. As false information had been provided and a material change of circumstances had not been notified the players were not effectively registered to Medway RFC. This meant that Medway RFC played the 4 players in a considerable number of league and other matches when they were not eligible to play. Medway RFC, with the assistance of the players, secured promotion to London 1 South and, with the assistance of the players, had commenced competing in London 1 South.

3 5. The false registrations were discovered when Mr Rann ed the RFU to complain that Mr Tila had agreed to join Tunbridge Wells RFC at a time when he had agreed to be registered with Medway RFC who had provided benefits to him. 6. The RFU carried out an investigation to find out whether Mr Tila was receiving material benefits. It is right to record that Mr Rann and Medway RFC co-operated fully with the investigation carried out by the RFU and the false registration of the players was discovered. 7. It was common ground that, because of restrictions on the visas issued to the players, none of the players were permitted to receive material benefits and that if the true position had been declared to the RFU, the players would not have been registered to Medway RFC. The decision of the Competition Hearing panel 8. The Competition Hearing panel set out its findings in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of its judgment, noting that all the players had received material benefits, that the forms in respect of each player were inaccurate, and that in consequence none of the players held effective registration. 9. The Competition hearing panel considered that promotion had been wrongly secured, that relegation was an appropriate sanction and that the scale of the Club s offending was such as to also require the imposition of an additional points deduction for next season. This was to underscore the seriousness of the offending, while ensuring that the Club remained competitive.

4 10. The Competition hearing panel specifically recorded that Mr Rann was a sincere volunteer whose integrity could not be called into question, but that his approach to his responsibilities had been cavalier. 11. The sanctions were that: Mr Rann was prohibited from holding office or participating in any form of on or off-field rugby administration from 21 st January 2016 up to and including 31 st August 2016; and Medway RFC was relegated from London 1 South at the conclusion of the season, irrespective of their finishing position, and it was ordered that Medway RFC would commence the league season with a 25 point deduction of league points in their new league which wold be London 2 South East. The issues on the appeal 12. Mr Rann appealed on the basis that his prohibition of over seven months was a sanction that no reasonable body could have come to, or was so excessive as to be unreasonable, pursuant to the provisions of RFU Regulation Mr Pritchard, on behalf of Mr Rann, emphasised the findings of fact made by the Competition Hearing panel to the effect that there had been co-operation, that Medway RFC and Mr Rann had not believed that they were doing anything wrong, that there was no intentional deceit, and that Mr Rann was a sincere volunteer whose integrity could not be questioned. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that Mr Rann s failings had not been deliberate.

5 14. Mr Pritchard submitted that having regard to other decided cases, there was no case of an individual receiving a 7 month suspension for inadvertent administrative error. Reference was made to paragraph 9.8 of the decision of the Competitions Hearing panel which had determined that Mr Rann should be excluded until the start of the season, which was stated to be 31 st August It was noted that, for an administrator, the season would start earlier than the playing season. 15. Mr Pritchard also noted that it appeared from current advertisements that other unidentified Clubs, at a similar or lower level than Medway RFC, were advertising for players in certain positions, offering material benefits such as free flights, and looking to register those players who would be acting in breach of their visas. 16. Medway RFC accepted that relegation was an appropriate sanction, but contended that a deduction of 25 points for the next season and disqualification from participating in the Kent County Championship competition 2015/16 ( the Kent Cup ) were sanctions which were ones that no reasonable body could have come to, or were so excessive as to be unreasonable. 17. Medway RFC relied on comments in online forums and in match day programmes to the effect that the treatment of Medway RFC by the Competition Hearing panel had been harsh, that Medway RFC had suffered from resignations and that the sanction risked creating a downturn in morale which would undo all the good work which had been achieved over the years. It was submitted that the error was inadvertent and that Medway RFC was being scapegoated. It was specifically

6 noted that the Kent Cup rules permit bona fide members of participating clubs who have played 5 matches during the season to be selected. It was noted that these were players who were bona fide members of Medway RFC. 18. Medway RFC originally submitted that the Competition Hearing panel had made an error of law by disqualifying Medway RFC from the Kent Cup contending that the RFU had no power to impose such a sanction. However the RFU pointed to RFU Regulation (b) which provided that for a club the sanction might be exclusion or disqualification from any competition. Where a competition does not fall within the jurisdiction of the RFU a club may be required to withdraw from that competition. In the light of this provision it became common ground that the Competition Hearing panel had the power, as a matter of law, to direct that Medway RFC should be disqualified from the Kent Cup, and it was submitted that, given that there was no infringement of the Kent Cup rules, disqualification was an inappropriate sanction. As Medway RFC had already had to withdraw from the Kent Cup this should be borne in mind in considering whether the other penalties were unreasonable and excessive. 19. The RFU submitted that the sanctions imposed by the Competition Hearing panel were reasonable and right. Decision on the appeals 20. It is right to record that the failings in this case were not deliberate. This part appears from the fact that it was Mr Rann who complained to the RFU about one of the players moving to another club at a time when Medway RFC had provided benefits to the player. However, as the Competitions Appeal panel recorded, Mr

7 Rann s approach to the player registration process was on any view cavalier. In our judgment the failings in this case were serious, because there were 4 separate failings, in respect of each of the players, in circumstances where the notes on the Guidance notes at section 12 were clear and easy to follow. 21. However the damage, or harm, done as a result of the failings by Mr Rann and Medway RFC was very significant. Competition had been distorted in the league competitions over 2 seasons because players who were not entitled to play for reward were receiving material benefits and playing for Medway RFC. Over the two seasons the players had been involved in 28 league matches and 12 cup matches. 22. It is right to note that other decided cases by RFU panels and appeal panels did not show that an administrator who had acted honestly had been subjected to a sanction of 7 months suspension. However, as Mr Smith QC on behalf of the RFU noted, there were no other comparable cases where, through inadvertent failings, an administrator had caused such a distortion of competition for such a period of time. Although it can be very helpful to direct panels to previous decisions where they are factually similar or establish some proposition (to ensure that like cases are decided alike) we do not consider that an over reference to and reliance on previous decisions assists anyone. As RFU Regulation makes clear panels and appeal panels are not courts of law. We did not derive much assistance from the previous decisions to which reference was made.

8 23. It is also right to note that it does appear that other Clubs may be registering players having offered them material benefits, without declaring that fact to the RFU. However this was a point specifically noted by the Competition Hearing panel at paragraph 11.1, and it is a matter which needs to be addressed by the RFU. This fact does not provide a defence, or any mitigation, to either Mr Rann or Medway RFC. This is because the relevant provisions are clear, and so are the guidance notes on the back of the forms which were completed by Mr Rann. 24. It is also right to note that the decision of the Competition Hearing panel had been criticised in some forums as harsh. Some of the criticism appeared to be based on the fact that other Clubs might have been guilty of similar conduct. As noted above, the fact that other Clubs have committed the same breaches may expose those other clubs to penalties, but it does not excuse or mitigate the failings in this case. 25. It is fair to note that the players were eligible to play for Medway RFC in the Kent Cup because the players were bona fide members of Medway RFC. However it should be recorded that the players had only become such bona fide members because they had been registered with the RFU, with false details, to Medway RFC. In these circumstances we do not consider that there was any error of law made by the Competition Hearing panel in disqualifying Medway RFC from this season s Kent Cup. 26. We do however consider that the Competition hearing panel imposed a prohibition on Mr Rann which would prevent him from carrying out administrative activities for the new season. The Competition Hearing panel

9 directed that Mr Rann s exclusion should be until the start of season , see paragraph 9.8. The suspension was until the start of the playing season, until 31 August For an administrator such as Mr Rann the administrative duties for the season will start by 1 st August In these circumstances we consider that the prohibition lasting until 31 st August 2016 was manifestly excessive, and we will suspend the last month of his prohibition. The suspension will be for the season. This means that if Mr Rann does not breach any relevant provisions of the rules or regulations during the season the last month of the exclusion will not be served. 27. We accept that the Competition Appeal hearing was entitled to impose a points deduction for the season even after relegating Medway RFC at the end of this season. This was to ensure that all Clubs understood the importance of ensuring proper registration of players in a similar position. However the effect of bringing that points suspension into effect will penalise the Club in a different season when it has already been severely punished for its failures in the past two seasons. There may be different players representing the Club who would be affected by the penalty for next season. The effect of the sanctions has already led to personnel changes at Medway RFC. The Competition Hearing panel was entitled to impose a severe penalty on Medway RFC to ensure compliance with the rules, but in our judgment this can be achieved by suspending the points deduction for the season and it was excessive and unreasonable to impose an immediate points deduction for the season The points will be suspended for the season. This means that if Medway EFC does

10 not breach any relevant provision of the rules or regulations during the season the points deduction will not come into effect. Costs 28. The sum of 125 was lodged for the costs of the appeal. In circumstances where Mr Rann and Medway RFC have both succeeded and failed in part on their appeal, we direct that half of the costs of the appeal be returned. Conclusion 29. For the detailed reasons set out above we dismiss the appeal save that: (1) the prohibition on Mr Rann from holding office or participating in any form of on or off-field rugby administration for one month of his prohibition is suspended for the season. This means that the prohibition will cease to have effect from 1 st August 2016; (2) the order that Medway RFC would commence the league season with a twenty-five (25) point deduction of league points shall be suspended for the season. We were very grateful to Mr Pritchard, Mr Smith QC and the respective parties for their assistance. James Dingemans Mike Curling John Vale 28 th March 2016