Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[four_or_six]

PEWS is totally correct... however, this is still a political nightmare for the ICC if one of them is found not guilty. There will probably be a massive outcry from the PCB, it is likey there will be an appeal to the court of arbitration for sport, millions of fans will be in uproar, and everyone will start accusing each other of all sorts of completely unrelated things.

All we can be sure of is that most of the problems will be put down to the DRS.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Show me the money bitches!

Isn't that why they are in court to begin with?

 

[zaremba]

I don't pretend to be an expert, but Justice Cooper's summing up (or the bits that've been reported) seem to favour the prosecution's case quite strongly.
... is this usual?

In my experience, yes

 

[zaremba]

So anyone can predict a no ball in betting and If its predicted correctly the player who bowled the no ball will have the burden of proof and will be banned until he proves his innocence? In the ICC.

As per PEWS's (excellent) it may be more helpful to think of the "standard of proof" rather than "burden of proof".

In a disciplinary tribunal the burden of proof is still on the "prosecution" just as in a criminal case. However the burden in a criminal case is to prove the case so that the jury is sure (or if you prefer "beyond reasonable doubt") whereas in many disciplinary tribunals the burden is to prove the case on the balance of probabilities - ie a much lower hurdle than that faced by the prosecution in a criminal trial.

To take a ridiculously oversimplified example, imagine if the evidence showed that there was a 75% probability that a player was guilty of a particular act, which was both a criminal offence and a breach of the disciplinary rules applicable to a particular sport, and the player was put through both a disciplinary procedure and a criminal trial. The jury in the criminal trial would be duty bound to acquit, whereas the tribunal in the disciplinary case would be bound to find the player guilty.

In a nutshell, this is one of the reasons why an acquittal for Butt and Asif should not lead the ICC to reconsider its verdict. The other reasons are explained by PEWS.

 

[fredfertang]

Without wishing to be unduly cynical I rather suspect that the main aim of those representing Asif and Butt will have been and continue to be to establish some grounds of appeal, the best of which invariably arise out of the Judge's summing up. In cases where the Prosecution case is strong Judge's therefore tend to be pretty fair - its only the weaker prosecution cases where they tend to stick the boot in - that's my experience anyway

....if there's a conviction, which I suspect is very likely, then I would think an appeal will inevitably follow - always a chance in the Court of Appeal especially if they bleat out the "couldn't get a fair trial due to all the adverse publicity especially that everyone knew we'd been banned" line

For a cringeworthy example just look at those "Lapland" brothers who got their convictions quashed today - if it weren't so serious it would be laughable

 

[zaremba]

those representing Asif and Butt

apropos of nothing much, Butt's QC is an old colleague of mine - nice chap and extremely good

 

[fredfertang]

apropos of nothing much, Butt's QC is an old colleague of mine - nice chap and extremely good

Able to make a decent silk purse out of the proverbial sow's ear then - if he gets an acquittal here I suspect it will go down as his career high won't it?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The ICC is an independent private body, representing world wide cricket interests. They can ban whoever the **** they like even if it's something small. It's completely different for a court.

 

[marc71178]

Show me the money bitches!

Sure, just make sure the 3rd ball of your 2nd over is a no ball.

 

[Faisal1985]

As per PEWS's (excellent) it may be more helpful to think of the "standard of proof" rather than "burden of proof".

In a disciplinary tribunal the burden of proof is still on the "prosecution" just as in a criminal case. However the burden in a criminal case is to prove the case so that the jury is sure (or if you prefer "beyond reasonable doubt") whereas in many disciplinary tribunals the burden is to prove the case on the balance of probabilities - ie a much lower hurdle than that faced by the prosecution in a criminal trial.

To take a ridiculously oversimplified example, imagine if the evidence showed that there was a 75% probability that a player was guilty of a particular act, which was both a criminal offence and a breach of the disciplinary rules applicable to a particular sport, and the player was put through both a disciplinary procedure and a criminal trial. The jury in the criminal trial would be duty bound to acquit, whereas the tribunal in the disciplinary case would be bound to find the player guilty.

In a nutshell, this is one of the reasons why an acquittal for Butt and Asif should not lead the ICC to reconsider its verdict. The other reasons are explained by PEWS.

Understood.

No disagreements on the fact that ICC has its own disciplinary code of conduct which sets out penalties for various violations etc. etc.

It doesn't need the level of proof a court requires to issue a guilty verdict.

But there has to be some sense in banning a player for 5years.

How absurd does it sound when I say it this way.

British Court acquits Asif and Butt of accepting corrupt payments for bowling deliberate no-balls in the test.

ICC's basis to find Asif, Amir and Butt guilty for violating the code of conduct were related to spotfixing not just bowling deliberate no ball hence the harsh punishments...

If a British Court, whose verdict we should hold in a very accurate manner and whose justice system is something most of us believe in, acquits the players, hence declares there is not enough evidence which will prove the players guilty, really throws the ICC's "Standard of Proof" in a **** hole.

The world governing body of cricket has quite a ****ty standard of proof to take away someone's fundamental human right to earn a living.


By the way nice switch from "burden of proof" argument to "standard of proof" as if this was a ****ing auction.

 

[Faisal1985]

That's just downright wrong though. You've shown absolutely no understanding of the my posts at all. Being found not guilty of UK criminal law by a UK criminal court is not the same as being found not guilty of ICC regulations by an ICC tribunal. It doesn't matter if the individual facts of the case are consistently adjudicated on throughout different systems for several reasons that I've already outlined. For example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend in a US criminal court, and then a US civil court determined that he'd done it and owed millions of dollars in compensation to the victims' estates. The two verdicts conflicted within the same legal system and yet they stood independently - two different systems with two different standards of proof and two different hearings came to two opposite verdicts - sound familiar? And let me tell you that US criminal court and US civil court are much more similar to each other than UK criminal court is to an ICC tribunal.

I wish I could ****block myself from the thread tbh.

Nice example.

But that is one load of **** system....

 

[Furball]

Whether the players benefitted financially from their actions should be irrelevant as far as their bans are concerned.

 

[Burgey]

Nice example.

But that is one load of **** system....

No it's not. They are different standards of proof. In a criminal case it's beyond reasonable doubt, as has been discussed on this thread. it's a tough standard of proof. In a civil case, it's the balance of probabilities, in other words, being satisfied 51:49 one wat or t'other.

 

[zaremba]

By the way nice switch from "burden of proof" argument to "standard of proof" as if this was a ****ing auction.

The "burden of proof" covers two questions: (1) who bears the burden? and (2) how heavy is that burden? The second question can also be described as the "standard of proof" - in other words, the level of certainty required in order for a case to be proved in any particular forum.

It makes things clearer in this context to talk about the standard of proof, but to do so doesn't entail any "switch" of arguments.

As has been made clear, the standard of proof differs in different kinds of cases: criminal cases require a very high standard, for obvious reasons - usually proof beyond reasonable doubt (or similar), whereas other cases generally require a lower standard. Depending on the particular tribunal you're talking about, disciplinary cases may require some kind of civil standard of proof (ie proof on the balance of probabilities, but requiring cogent evidence commensurate with the seriousness of the alleged offence) or they may require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't understand what you mean by an "auction". Sorry.

A final point: in case anyone thinks that the ICC panel was some kind of laughable kangaroo court, two of the three judges were Michael Beloff QC and Albie Sachs of the South African Constitutional Court, who are very serious lawyers / judges indeed.

 

[G.I.Joe]

PEWS is totally correct... however, this is still a political nightmare for the ICC if one of them is found not guilty. There will probably be a massive outcry from the PCB, it is likey there will be an appeal to the court of arbitration for sport, millions of fans will be in uproar, and everyone will start accusing each other of all sorts of completely unrelated things.

All we can be sure of is that most of the problems will be put down to the DRS.

Wot?

 

[Burgey]

Does anyone on here seriously believe (never mind the outcome of the court case) that Asif bowling the no-ball in question was a mere coincidence?

 

[Faisal1985]

The "burden of proof" covers two questions: (1) who bears the burden? and (2) how heavy is that burden? The second question can also be described as the "standard of proof" - in other words, the level of certainty required in order for a case to be proved in any particular forum.

It makes things clearer in this context to talk about the standard of proof, but to do so doesn't entail any "switch" of arguments.

As has been made clear, the standard of proof differs in different kinds of cases: criminal cases require a very high standard, for obvious reasons - usually proof beyond reasonable doubt (or similar), whereas other cases generally require a lower standard. Depending on the particular tribunal you're talking about, disciplinary cases may require some kind of civil standard of proof (ie proof on the balance of probabilities, but requiring cogent evidence commensurate with the seriousness of the alleged offence) or they may require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't understand what you mean by an "auction". Sorry.

A final point: in case anyone thinks that the ICC panel was some kind of laughable kangaroo court, two of the three judges were Michael Beloff QC and Albie Sachs of the South African Constitutional Court, who are very serious lawyers / judges indeed.

I am not a lawyer, but did take a couple of criminal law courses in University. I never knew that their were 2 aspects to the burden of proof (my lack of knowledge)....To me burden of proof only refers to the fact that the prosecution has to prove the guilt and the defendant doesn't have to prove the innocence mind you in terror cases this has been reversed, especially in Canada by way of Bill C36. And as far as standard of proof is concerned its different from Burden of Proof, as far as my knowledge was it is always decided before the case whether the proof or evidence on hand makes legitimate grounds for invoking criminal charges or whether the prosecution believes that they have reasonable grounds to press charges and win a conviction. So this is a first for me that Burden of Proof also implies standard of proof.

But if you say so, point taken and no one is disrespecting by any means the people involved in the disciplinary hearing at the ICC. The punishments are too steep if no balls were delivered for other reasons than fixing and I personally think ICC should revisit their verdict in light of the trial If both walk free of charges. That is purely my opinion.

 

[Faisal1985]

Does anyone on here seriously believe (never mind the outcome of the court case) that Asif bowling the no-ball in question was a mere coincidence?

The only thing that bugs me is that this **** actually bowled a no ball which was just an inch from the crease...and the ump called it too....sometimes umps don't give such close calls and its risky because you could just end up inside the line and screw up the whole fix....i don't know it seems very close...

 

[Faisal1985]

Whether the players benefitted financially from their actions should be irrelevant as far as their bans are concerned.

Why?

 

[Faisal1985]

No it's not. They are different standards of proof. In a criminal case it's beyond reasonable doubt, as has been discussed on this thread. it's a tough standard of proof. In a civil case, it's the balance of probabilities, in other words, being satisfied 51:49 one wat or t'other.

Don't mean to be a **** but its a ****ty system which can take away someone's right to earn a living.