THE HERALD REPORTS
Banned player could face accusers again

KEVIN FERRIE November 24 2006

An amateur club player who had his nine-month ban from rugby lifted last week may be forced to face the people who convicted him wrongly when he finally gets an overdue chance to defend himself.
Officials offered a misleading explanation of the appeals panel's findings when, last week, The Herald asked why Justin McNab of Stobswell RFC was free to play again, just three weeks after an SRU discipline panel claimed to be making an example of him in banning him for verbal abuse.
At that point the impression was given that the matter was being kept in the hands of the appeals panel. It was said that McNab was only being allowed to play as "the appeals committee is seeking further information".
That was in response to a direct question as to whether there had been a problem with the SRU's procedures. They failed to acknowledge, until it was subsequently confirmed elsewhere, that the appeals panel found that the original discipline panel completely failed to implement its own procedures by denying McNab a fair hearing.
In that light, the SRU now admits that "the appeals committee has sent the case back to the discipline panel for it to consider new information which was not available to the panel when the panel made its original decision.
"Mr McNab will have a full opportunity to make whatever representations he wishes to the panel and can submit such evidence as he thinks appropriate in his defence."
Even that appears disingenuous, since it implies the issue is about "new information" whereas McNab has simply not yet been given the proper opportunity to defend himself.
Of greater concern is that there is no guarantee that the same individuals will not hear his case second time around, although the make-up of the discipline panel can change.
That could destroy his chance of a fair trial, since those involved first time around pronounced his guilt and sentenced him publicly before informing him of their decision officially.
The discipline panel appears to have failed to implement its own procedures in terms of allowing the player to defend himself.
While there are clear questions regarding competence and morality - the discipline panel's procedures also make reference to the rights of the accused to natural justice - there may also be a question regarding legality.
Stobswell RFC are understood to be consulting a solicitor on McNab's behalf and may be advised that a case could be made for defamation.
While it is clear that, when participating in organised sport, a player signs up, through his club, to the governing body's codes of conduct that surely applies only where those involved then follow their own procedures as laid down.
In this instance, in so publicly calling into question McNab's reputation without allowing him to defend it, the SRU discipline may have left itself open and it may not now be in his interests to attend the hearing scheduled for December 5.
It is perhaps with that in mind that the SRU spokesman who passed comment on this volunteered the information to The Herald that "both the appeals committee and discipline panel are independent of the SRU. Since Mr McNab's case is now pending before the panel, it would not be appropriate to make any further comment."

This article was posted on 24-Nov-2006, 08:23 by Hugh Barrow.