Michael VaughanHis lawyer has said that his client was denied “due process”, and “sent on leave” in the ECB’s investigation into allegations that he made racist comments to four Asian and British-Asian players in 2009. Christopher Stoner KC, representing Vaughan, called the investigation “grossly and woefully inadequate” on the final day of a Cricket Disciplinary Commission (CDC) hearing in London, where final submissions by a three-person panel were being heard .
The ECB’s lead counsel, Jane Mulcahy, closed the matter by focusing again on a series of historical tweets made by Vaughan, at least one of which was around the time he allegedly made the comments. Arguing that they were “central to the case”, Mulcahy said, “If a person has a tendency to make racist remarks, they have a tendency to make racist remarks.”
Much of the final day ended in closing submissions for the Vaughan charge, to highlight how the five-day hearing had boiled down to Azim Rafiq’s allegation and Vaughan’s defence. Presented charges against ECB Amir Parah And Andrew Gayle in the morning, but he – along with four other players from Yorkshire CCC – had already decided not to appear.
as signposted in their Cross-examination with Meena BotrosStoner, the ECB’s legal and integrity director, last week criticized the ECB’s investigative process, particularly the testimony given by Ajmal Shahzad. Shahzad was one of four players at whom Vaughan allegedly directed his comments that day, but he told the ECB that he did not remember the comment being made and also that he thought Vaughan was “so inclined”. were not” [to making racist comments],
Stoner argued that there was significant “counter-evidence” to the historical tweets by Vaughan that the ECB was relying on in its case. “The investigation was grossly inadequate,” Stoner said. “Due process matters and is a cornerstone of the law. At our request it was sent on leave by the ECB. It raises a real question of fairness.” [of this investigation], Fairness has not been given to Mr Vaughan.”
Vaughan’s defense also presented a 22-page storyboard of footage of Sky’s pre-game huddle that day, footage they argue is the only “contemporary evidence” of the incident. In it, they dissect a two-minute clip that begins with Vaughan addressing the team before taking the field. Stoner argued that it was “naturally impossible that in the presence of a cameraman and almost certainly a microphone, such grave and unacceptable words were spoken to teammates just as the game was starting.”
He also criticized “half-hearted attempts” to reach players and potential witnesses over the day, including umpires and cameramen.
Mulcahy had already begun his conclusion, placing Vaughan’s historic tweets front and center of the ECB’s argument. Mulcahy said two of the three tweets – brought up in his cross-examination of Vaughn last week – were made in 2010. 2010) sent two tweets complaining about foreigners… [he] Even seven years later when he sent further tweets about Muslims and possible terrorism the same ‘unacceptable’ views… The supposedly light hearted but offensive expression in the tweets is very similar in tone to the comment made on 22 June 2009.
She argued that this showed that it was “quite the contrary”, as the defense argued, “inherently impossible” that Vaughan said what he said. He said it did not matter, as Vaughan’s defense argued, that the tweets were non-cricketing in context. “If a person has a tendency to make racist remarks, he has a tendency to make racist remarks”. Vaughan’s tweets, he said, were “for all to see”, including those with whom he played.
In support, Mulcahy also pointed to the fact that Yorkshire accepted an allegation of systemic racism at the club over the period from 2004 to 2021. During this, Hoggard and Gary Ballance admitted to making racist or discriminatory remarks.
Mulcahy also launched a strong defense of the ECB’s investigation, calling out an “extraordinary amount of bitter and inaccurate correspondence” from Vaughan’s legal team regarding the disciplinary process. She said that the allegations regarding the Sky cameraman’s interview illustrated the “ridiculous lengths” to which Vaughan is prepared to “unfairly muck up the ECB”.
He concluded his arguments by saying that the allegation was “properly based on corroborating testimony of Azeem Rafiq on Adil Rashid and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan” and that it was Vaughan’s closing submission to suggest the ECB should be “separated”. is plainly objectionable and wrong”. Vaughn.
Both Pirah and Gayle have denied allegations that they used racist and/or offensive language, including “Rafa the k***”, “p***”, “u lot” and “fit p***” between 2008 and 2014. Used discriminatory language. Closing submissions were made by the ECB – in the form of written statements to the panel – against the two as well as other absentees, Hoggard, Tim Bresnan and John Blaine.
The three-person panel comprising Tim O’Gorman (chair), Mark Milliken-Smith Casey and Dr Seema Patel said they expected to publish a decision by the end of March.