Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[fredfertang]

Bowling a no ball doesn't guarantee a change of strike. A half volley on leg stump is more likely to

It's not about tactics on the field here mate, it's about the best tactics in court.

Deny. Deny. Deny.

Simpler and more plausible. How many coincidences are there in cricket? Unless they can prove a link between the taped conversation and him knowing about it, there's a decent shot at reasonable doubt. If he admits he was told to do it, he puts himself closer to the transaction.

Yeah sorry mate, that was an unnecessarily pedantic move away from the point

I'm pretty sure on what I've read so far that Asif won't be giving any evidence

 

[Burgey]

A no-ball half volley making best of both worlds?

No. A no-ball half volley makes Mitchell Johnson.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah sorry mate, that was an unnecessarily pedantic move away from the point

I'm pretty sure on what I've read so far that Asif won't be giving any evidence

Yeah it would be smart for him not to I think. I gather from what's been said here that the link to him is more tenuous than for Butt. Is it the case he managed to offload the cashto his dealer before they found it? I heard no money was found in his room or something.

 

[Xuhaib]

Bowling a no ball doesn't guarantee a change of strike. A half volley on leg stump is more likely to

It's not about tactics on the field here mate, it's about the best tactics in court.

Deny. Deny. Deny.

Simpler and more plausible. How many coincidences are there in cricket? Unless they can prove a link between the taped conversation and him knowing about it, there's a decent shot at reasonable doubt. If he admits he was told to do it, he puts himself closer to the transaction.

in this case the tactic was not to change strike it was to keep the batsman from charging down the crease hence the effort no ball to keep the batsman in his box.

Historically Captain have given deliberate runs as part of game tactic

Historically bowlers have bowled deliberate noballs as part of a game tactic Aaqib javed and Pat Patterson have gone on record about this.

Yes these things are rare but not out of the ordinary personally I am certain Asif was in the fix but if they don't gather any further evidence on him I would be disappointed if he is charged guilty on the basis of the evidence that has been out in the public till this point.

 

[Burgey]

in this case the tactic was not to change strike it was to keep the batsman from charging down the crease hence the effort no ball to keep the batsman in his box.

Historically Captain have given deliberate runs as part of game tactic

Historically bowlers have bowled deliberate noballs as part of a game tactic Aaqib javed and Pat Patterson have gone on record about this.

Yes these things are rare but not out of the ordinary personally I am certain Asif was in the fix but if they don't gather any further evidence on him I would be disappointed if he is charged guilty on the basis of the evidence that has been out in the public till this point.

Yeah but I think we're at cross purposes mate. I'm not saying these things don't happen, I'm saying from the POV of his defense, he's better off just denying he was told to do it, and simply denying everything. Just say it's an accident.

 

[G.I.Joe]

There are all sorts of ethical considerations if a client says that, principally "hoe can I hang onto the brief and get a fee now the **** has spilled his guts to me?"

Why are you asking me?

 

[fredfertang]

Why are you asking me?

I think I can explain why.

You may recall that a few months ago Burgey said that if England retained the Ashes he would walk naked through Martin Place

Now he knows that sometime next week he's going to cop a bit of stick for his apparent failure to do that

So what he's hoping is that you'll put together a montage for him, much like you did for Craig, that he can then try and pass off as evidence that he did take the walk of shame (or pride, depending on your point of view)

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think I can explain why.

You may recall that a few months ago Burgey said that if England retained the Ashes he would walk naked through Martin Place

Now he knows that sometime next week he's going to cop a bit of stick for his apparent failure to do that

So what he's hoping is that you'll put together a montage for him, much like you did for Craig, that he can then try and pass off as evidence that he did take the walk of shame (or pride, depending on your point of view)

Try as I might to push the boundaries, there seems to be common ground among impressionists, expressionists and surrealists alike that nothing is more difficult to incorporate into high art than the umbrella hat.

 

[Burgey]

Why are you asking me?

Yo hoe!

Just a typo on the iPhone in homage to Steve Jobs.

 

[Burgey]

Try as I might to push the boundaries, there seems to be common ground among impressionists, expressionists and surrealists alike that nothing is more difficult to incorporate into high art than the umbrella hat.

I'll incorporate it in your arse if you keep reminding me of it!

 

[Furball]

in this case the tactic was not to change strike it was to keep the batsman from charging down the crease hence the effort no ball to keep the batsman in his box.

Historically Captain have given deliberate runs as part of game tactic

Historically bowlers have bowled deliberate noballs as part of a game tactic Aaqib javed and Pat Patterson have gone on record about this.

Yes these things are rare but not out of the ordinary personally I am certain Asif was in the fix but if they don't gather any further evidence on him I would be disappointed if he is charged guilty on the basis of the evidence that has been out in the public till this point.

Except Asif was tying both Cook and Strauss in knots and bowled Strauss first ball next over. The 'throw in an effort ball' tactic doesn't make sense.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Except Asif was tying both Cook and Strauss in knots and bowled Strauss first ball next over. The 'throw in an effort ball' tactic doesn't make sense.

Does it have to make sense for his lawyer to convince the jury? I don't think there is a problem with using rubbish tactics.

 

[Furball]

Does it have to make sense for his lawyer to convince the jury? I don't think there is a problem with using rubbish tactics.

All Asif has to do is say "the no-ball I bowled was an accident, I was on top of both England's batsman and I overstepped accidentally for one ball out of the 67 I bowled that day."

Basically what Burgey said earlier today (which was pretty much what I said last night) - as soon as he tries to put the blame for the no-ball on Butt, he opens himself up to a much more uncomfortable line of questioning. The onus is on the prosecution to prove his involvement, Asif can shut down that line of questioning by saying it was a mistake or an accident. Good luck proving Asif was involved in the conspiracy to defraud when he maintains that his no-ball was accidental (and unlike Amir, that's a much more watertight defence when you look at the deliveries in question), there appears to be a lack of mobile phone evidence tying him in with Majeed and no money that changed hands between the NOTW and Majeed has been found on him.

 

[Fusion]

All Asif has to do is say "the no-ball I bowled was an accident, I was on top of both England's batsman and I overstepped accidentally for one ball out of the 67 I bowled that day."

I’m inclined to believe that this is his best defense option as well. I don’t think a reasonable jury will absolve him of guilt if he says “my captain made me do it”. Or maybe not. I’m thinking more from my perspective and how I would decide if I was on the jury.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

All Asif has to do is say "the no-ball I bowled was an accident, I was on top of both England's batsman and I overstepped accidentally for one ball out of the 67 I bowled that day."

Basically what Burgey said earlier today (which was pretty much what I said last night) - as soon as he tries to put the blame for the no-ball on Butt, he opens himself up to a much more uncomfortable line of questioning. The onus is on the prosecution to prove his involvement, Asif can shut down that line of questioning by saying it was a mistake or an accident. Good luck proving Asif was involved in the conspiracy to defraud when he maintains that his no-ball was accidental (and unlike Amir, that's a much more watertight defence when you look at the deliveries in question), there appears to be a lack of mobile phone evidence tying him in with Majeed and no money that changed hands between the NOTW and Majeed has been found on him.

Well his legal team is the best money can buy, so I am sure they agree with you and Burgey on this one.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I’m inclined to believe that this is his best defense option as well. I don’t think a reasonable jury will absolve him of guilt if he says “my captain made me do it”. Or maybe not. I’m thinking more from my perspective and how I would decide if I was on the jury.

Will they even have British Pakistani's in the Jury, especially ones who follow cricket.

 

[Furball]

Will they even have British Pakistani's in the Jury, especially ones who follow cricket.

I can't remember where I saw this (I thought it was on cricinfo but can't find the article in question) - there were 3 questions potential jurors had to answer "yes" or "no" to as to whether they or any family members were involved in the gambling industry or were involved in cricket, and anyone who answered "yes" to any of the 3 questions weren't allowed to be present on the jury.

 

[Furball]

I’m inclined to believe that this is his best defense option as well. I don’t think a reasonable jury will absolve him of guilt if he says “my captain made me do it”. Or maybe not. I’m thinking more from my perspective and how I would decide if I was on the jury.

As soon as Asif says "my captain made me do it" then any good prosecution lawyer will be on it in a flash with awkward questions that could make Asif trip up and implicate himself if he is not careful with his answers. If Asif maintains that his no-ball was an accident then the onus is on the prosecution to then prove otherwise.

 

[zaremba]

I've always wondered about legal stuff, because I have no idea wtf goes on with lawyers. Does a defendent just say to their lawyer "I'm guilty, but I'm not admitting it, what's the best way to get me off?" or is that generally considered to be unethical?

But there's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't represent them any more? I've always wondered because I know there's confidentiality between lawyer and client, but I don't know what lawyers do in this situation.

This is an easy one, although we often get asked it. It's been some time since I did criminal law but I can't believe it's changed since then.

If a barrister's client says to him, "I'm guilty, but I'm not admitting it" and wants to plead not guilty, that's not a problem at all for the barrister. The barrister still has a duty to represent his client. The key things to remember here are:

(1) it is an absolutely central principle in the criminal justice system that everyone is innocent until proven guilty - it is for the prosecution to prove its case, and unless it does, the defendant must be acquitted;

(2) the barrister has an duty to advance his client's interests to the greatest extent consistent with his duty to the court (see (3)); and

(3) the barrister has a duty not to actively mislead the Court.

The upshot of these principles is as follows. The Defendant pleads not guilty, as he is entitled to do. Until convicted, he is innocent, and he and his barrister are entitled to put the prosecution case to proof. That means that the reliability of the prosecution evidence can be tested and challenged to an extremely exacting degree by the defence barrister. The defence barrister can make a speech to the jury in which he spells out the weaknesses and gaps in the prosecution's case, and to persuade them that they must therefore acquit. You will see that this conforms will all of the principles set out at (1) to (3) above.

What the defence barrister must not do, however, is to mislead the Court. That means that he cannot suggest that his client (whom he privately knows actually committed the offence) did not commit the offence. He can't suggest that the prosecution witnesses are lying, nor can he call his own client to give evidence that he in fact didn't commit the offence, or to produce an alibi (which he must know to be false), etc. Nor in his closing speech can he suggest that his client didn't in fact commit the offence.

 

[Furball]

This is an easy one, although we often get asked it. It's been some time since I did criminal law but I can't believe it's changed since then.

If a barrister's client says to him, "I'm guilty, but I'm not admitting it" and wants to plead not guilty, that's not a problem at all for the barrister. The barrister still has a duty to represent his client. The key things to remember here are:

(1) it is an absolutely central principle in the criminal justice system that everyone is innocent until proven guilty - it is for the prosecution to prove its case, and unless it does, the defendant must be acquitted;

(2) the barrister has an duty to advance his client's interests to the greatest extent consistent with his duty to the court (see (3)); and

(3) the barrister has a duty not to actively mislead the Court.

The upshot of these principles is as follows. The Defendant pleads not guilty, as he is entitled to do. Until convicted, he is innocent, and he and his barrister are entitled to put the prosecution case to proof. That means that the reliability of the prosecution evidence can be tested and challenged to an extremely exacting degree by the defence barrister. The defence barrister can make a speech to the jury in which he spells out the weaknesses and gaps in the prosecution's case, and to persuade them that they must therefore acquit. You will see that this conforms will all of the principles set out at (1) to (3) above.

What the defence barrister must not do, however, is to mislead the Court. That means that he cannot suggest that his client (whom he privately knows actually committed the offence) did not commit the offence. He can't suggest that the prosecution witnesses are lying, nor can he call his own client to give evidence that he in fact didn't commit the offence, or to produce an alibi (which he must know to be false), etc. Nor in his closing speech can he suggest that his client didn't in fact commit the offence.

So let's say that Asif and Butt had had a private conversation in one of their hotel rooms the night before, where it was agreed that Asif would bowl the no-ball in question. Neither player discusses the matter on the field of play.

If Asif is asked the question "did Salman Butt ask you on the field of play to bowl a no-ball" and Asif (truthfully) answers "no, there was no discussion about bowling tactics on the field between me and Salman", would that come under misleading the Court?