1 year ago
56
Key events Show key events only Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Stoner notes that the Yorkshire player Rana Naved-ul-Hasan gave an interview to the journalist George Dobell, which backed Azeem Rafiq’s claims about Michael Vaughan’s comments. However he has since not engaged with the ECB’s investigation. “Not in terms of giving evidence, no,” agrees Botros.
After the break, Stoner continues his cross-examination of Botros and the ECB’s investigation of Vaughan’s comments.
Mr Shahzad makes a serious allegation that he believes a witness is being pressured. Surely you go away and ask further questions? “We did and Adil Rashid answered that yesterday,” replies Botros. Did you ask Mr Rashid for any documents? “I don’t recall what specifically we asked in terms of messages.” You spoke to Mr Rafiq and you spoke to Mr Shahzad but you didn’t speak to any of the players? “I think that is correct.” You didn’t speak to any of the umpires, “No?” The cameraman? “No” Or ask to interview Mr Vaughan? “We wrote to him.” You weren’t really interested in looking into the matter, apart from finding corroborating evidence, were you Mr Botos? “That’s not correct.”
Botros confirms that what Shahzad said about backing Vaughan was not put to Bresnan and Gayle. “It was absolutely clear what Mr Bresnan and Gayle thought about Mr Rafeeq’s allegations and their attitude was crystal clear,” he explains. “We know they didn’t corroborate Mr Rafiq’s account.” He also confirms he didn’t ask Michael for an interview. “The reality was you were not interested in what Mr Vaughan had to say because he had already been charged, isn’t it,” asks Stoner. Botros says that is wrong.
The hearing is taking a break for 15 minutes.
Stoner is continuing to criticise the ECB’s evidence gathering - and questions why they did not contact the umpires of the match in question. “There is no suggestion that the umpires were close enough to hear it,” counters Botros. “There is a very specific allegation that it was loud enough for the Yorkshire players to hear it. Surely the fair and transparent thing to do is ask the umpires?” asks Stoner. Botros disagrees.
“One thing that is clear from the footage is the Sky cameraman is very close,” continues Stoner. “Surely you spoke to him. “No we didn’t,” responds Botros. Why did you not ask the question of the cameraman, who was filming the huddle? “Because there is no suggestion that the cameraman heard it. We had to carry out a reasonable and proportionate investigation.
“As part of your investigation you did not consider it important to speak to the cameraman who filmed the huddle?” asks a bemused Stoner. A defensive sounding Botros suggests he may not have heard anything because he had headphones on.
Botros is asked why comments from Shahzad, Gayle and Bresnan – who supported Vaughan’s view of events – were not initially given to Vaughan’s legal team. Botros says that he did make Stoner aware that Shahzad supported Vaughan’s account of events.
“But he went further than that,” says Stoner. “He says he didn’t hear it and Mr Vaughan is not the type of person to say it. And that document that was withheld from my client. “The ECB had the right to maintain privilege over it for good reason,” replies Botros.
“Surely you should have conducted an investigation and disclosed all documents, good and bad,” says Stoner. “We did subject to legal principles.” “And four months after he was charged my client finally got them.” “It was a significant amount of time before the hearing,” says Botros.
Notable admission by Botros, who confesses he was unable to get contact details for some of players involved in the match where Vaughan is alleged to have uttered the remarks to get evidence.
“You were speaking to some players. Did it occur to ask them if they had details of other players?” asks an incredulous Stoner. “The main way we got players was through the Professional Cricketers Association.”
Is it right that because the PCA did not get consent from three players, you took no other steps to approach those players? “Yes.”
Stoner continues to question Botros. He directs his attention to a point in his witness statement in which he stated: “In its capacity as a regulator, the ECB must remain independent of action being taken by one of its member first class county clubs.”
“That’s just not what happened, is it?” Stoner suggests. Botros bluntly replies: “It is what happened.” Botros, who continues to sound defensive, is then asked: Did you look at anyone’s phones to consider whether there were any relevant messages? “Messages?” Messages relevant to Michael Vaughan, replies Stoner. “We didn’t require anyone to hand their phones to us.” Did you ask in any event if you could look? “We asked for relevant documents from individuals. Did we ask for people to hand their phones physically over to us? No.”
Stoner is criticising the process of the ECB’s enquiry and its scope. He reads out comments from Lord Patel, who ran Yorkshire after the Azeem Rafiq allegations emerged, in an interview given to the Eastern Eye. In it Patel starts by saying: “when the going got tough the ECB didn’t back him”.
“I was asked by the ECB to meet a set of criteria that most people would have winced at, would have thought there’s no way we can deliver this, and I delivered it,” Patel adds. “I was asked by the ECB to work with them to create a framework and an environment where we would prove to the world that we want a non-racist institution, and I did all that. I was asked by the ECB to ensure some people who were there from the previous regime did not take part in that governance process, very clear about that.”
Stoner asks whether Patel is right that during the period of the investigation into Yorkshire the ECB asked him to do all those things. “That is what you have read out, so that is the case.”
Are you saying Lord Patel is not being truthful? “I am not saying that was the case. I can’t talk of the things that Lord Patel talks about.”
Stoner suggests the ECB were “actively involved” in the Yorkshire situation while the investigation was ongoing. However, Botros insists that Stoner is “mistaking” the ECB’s regulatory function from its other roles.
Christopher Stoner KC, counsel for Vaughan, is questioning Botros’s submission, saying it should have included points for and against the ECB’s case rather than be one-sided. Stoner then asks “what on earth is the purpose” of Botros mentioning in his witness statement that Ajmal Shahzad “notably” failed to mention that he had shaken Michael Vaughan’s hand before the T20 match.
Of course Shahzad was the Yorkshire player who has said he never heard anything untoward said by Vaughan – and Stoner suggests that the ECB was trying to undermine Shahzad’s evidence.
“No – it’s in there to set out relevant information in terms of what I can give for my witness statement,” replies Botros. He disagrees with Stoner’s line of questioning and insists the ECB’s investigation was “fair and proportionate”.
We now move back to the ECB’s case against Michael Vaughan, who is
charged with the use of “racist and/or discriminatory language”. He is alleged to have said “there’s too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that” towards the four Asian players before Yorkshire’s Twenty20 match against Nottinghamshire on 22 June 2009. It is the only charge brought against Vaughan who denies the allegation.
Meena Botros, the ECB’s director of legal and integrity, takes the stand. He was in charge of the ECB’s investigation into Yorkshire.
Preamble
Day three of the Cricket Discipline Commission has just got under way, with Michael Vaughan due to give evidence later.
The day starts with the former Scottish cricketer Majid Haq confirming his witness statement in regards to Jon Blain, who is one of the Yorkshire players charged by the ECB. No questions are asked of him before he leaves the stand.
English (US)