-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Chris Cairns' Perjury Trial
- Thread starter fredfertang
- Start date
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Nine-week trial indicates it wasn't the most straightforward of cases to run. Always a chance a jury would acquit given the volume of material they would have had to consider.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Maybe he didn't do it
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Who knows?
As I have said before, I have met the guy and struggle to believe it but he could be a great actor
If he knocks on my door tonight, I'll let you know what he tells me
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
I feel for McCullum - he's had a nightmare tour of Australia and now some people may doubt his version of events. Also players may be even likely to report approaches now.
I wonder when the Modi civil trial will be.
I wonder when the Modi civil trial will be.
Last edited:
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
I also feel for Lou Vincent - I hope that this doesn't trigger negative behaviour for him. I hope that there are good support people around him.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
The only way Cairns was found not guilty was if everyone believed that Vincent was a completely untrustworthy bull****ter who should be ignored.
I feel for the guy, but that's probably fair treatment.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
[Cairns trial: Why Chris Cairns was found not guilty video
KEVIN NORQUAY IN LONDON
Last updated 07:53, December 1 2015
Chris Cairns has walked free from Southwark Crown Court, after the jury found him not guilty of lying under oath.
Did the jury really take his word over that of New Zealand cricket captain Brendon McCullum, or was there more to it than that? Answer: There was a lot more to it..
Perjury is hard to prove: Cairns was accused of lying under oath, which is regarded as very difficult to prove. The jury had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Cairns deliberately made a "material" statement, "knowing it was false, or not believing it to be true". There had to be corroboration, with more than one person telling the same story, or documents which backed witness statements. At the core of the case was Cairns saying "I have never, ever cheated at cricket. Nor would I ever contemplate such a thing." So to prove that, the prosecution had to convince the jury he had cheated, or at least thought about it. The prosecution had to prove its case; Cairns did not have to prove he was innocent.
Match-fixing is hard to prove: The jury had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Cairns had cheated. This is hard to prove, and very few players have been caught doing it. Cricket is a game where disasters befall players, even when they are trying. It's hard to distinguish between disaster and deception by a cheat. Even Lou Vincent, when dobbed in by more than one player, was able to lie his way out of trouble, for a time at least. Cairns and Vincent, shown the same shots on a video, gave opposing views on whether it was fixing by batting slowly to lose, or careful building of an innings. How could a jury be expected to unravel that? Even an unaligned expert could not have been 100 per cent certain. Again, Cairns did not have to prove he did not cheat.
Show me the money: If match-fixing is done, it's done to make money. The only money traced to any bank account as a result of fixing went into that of Lou Vincent. At the other end of the trail, you didn't find Cairns, but bookies. So the jury had Vincent alleging he was to be paid US$50,000 by Cairns to fix games, yet he never got a cent. Nor did he have an IOU, or a recorded conversation discussing fixing. Nothing. As well as that, for an alleged kingpin of international match-fixing, Cairns wasn't shown to have massive financial resources of his own - the opposite, in fact. The prosecution was never able to make more than veiled hints about Cairns being in the pay of Dubai diamond merchants. He was able to explain the payments they made him.
Lou Vincent: Having a key witness who is a self-confessed cheat and admitted liar is a weakness. Vincent may well have turned over a new leaf, and wanted to come clean for the good of cricket. But before now, the jury was told he cheated at cricket, he cheated on his wife with a prostitute, he lied to anti-corruption investigators, he lied to his wife, and admitted mental health problems. He had told his ex-wife Ellie Riley he needed a "big name" to give the authorities, so he would be treated more kindly. Justice Sweeney warned the jury to treat Vincent's evidence - which was plausible in many respects - with caution: those who lessened their own culpability by implicating others were a particular danger. It's possible the jury treated Vincent's evidence with the level of caution you'd treat a fast ball outside leg stump - 'we'll let this one go through to the keeper'. With Riley having been married to Vincent, it's possible the jury felt the word of New Zealand cricket captain Brendon McCullum was not enough to convict on: for perjury, you need more than one man's word against another.
Orlando Pownall, QC: Cairns had taken wise counsel in Pownall, who was meticulously detailed - sometimes tooth-grindingly so - in his defence. He looked under every rock, questioned every detail, and had a passive-aggressive touch that saw him ask tough questions in a nice way. Crown prosecutor Sasha Wass, QC, was no slouch either. She was a opening bowler who blazed away in very direct and devastating spells of cross examination; Pownall was more akin to a seamer who kept coming back undeterred, nagging away over-after-over tirelessly.
Cairns trial: Why Chris Cairns was found not guilty | Stuff.co.nz
KEVIN NORQUAY IN LONDON
Last updated 07:53, December 1 2015
Chris Cairns has walked free from Southwark Crown Court, after the jury found him not guilty of lying under oath.
Did the jury really take his word over that of New Zealand cricket captain Brendon McCullum, or was there more to it than that? Answer: There was a lot more to it..
Perjury is hard to prove: Cairns was accused of lying under oath, which is regarded as very difficult to prove. The jury had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Cairns deliberately made a "material" statement, "knowing it was false, or not believing it to be true". There had to be corroboration, with more than one person telling the same story, or documents which backed witness statements. At the core of the case was Cairns saying "I have never, ever cheated at cricket. Nor would I ever contemplate such a thing." So to prove that, the prosecution had to convince the jury he had cheated, or at least thought about it. The prosecution had to prove its case; Cairns did not have to prove he was innocent.
Match-fixing is hard to prove: The jury had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Cairns had cheated. This is hard to prove, and very few players have been caught doing it. Cricket is a game where disasters befall players, even when they are trying. It's hard to distinguish between disaster and deception by a cheat. Even Lou Vincent, when dobbed in by more than one player, was able to lie his way out of trouble, for a time at least. Cairns and Vincent, shown the same shots on a video, gave opposing views on whether it was fixing by batting slowly to lose, or careful building of an innings. How could a jury be expected to unravel that? Even an unaligned expert could not have been 100 per cent certain. Again, Cairns did not have to prove he did not cheat.
Show me the money: If match-fixing is done, it's done to make money. The only money traced to any bank account as a result of fixing went into that of Lou Vincent. At the other end of the trail, you didn't find Cairns, but bookies. So the jury had Vincent alleging he was to be paid US$50,000 by Cairns to fix games, yet he never got a cent. Nor did he have an IOU, or a recorded conversation discussing fixing. Nothing. As well as that, for an alleged kingpin of international match-fixing, Cairns wasn't shown to have massive financial resources of his own - the opposite, in fact. The prosecution was never able to make more than veiled hints about Cairns being in the pay of Dubai diamond merchants. He was able to explain the payments they made him.
Lou Vincent: Having a key witness who is a self-confessed cheat and admitted liar is a weakness. Vincent may well have turned over a new leaf, and wanted to come clean for the good of cricket. But before now, the jury was told he cheated at cricket, he cheated on his wife with a prostitute, he lied to anti-corruption investigators, he lied to his wife, and admitted mental health problems. He had told his ex-wife Ellie Riley he needed a "big name" to give the authorities, so he would be treated more kindly. Justice Sweeney warned the jury to treat Vincent's evidence - which was plausible in many respects - with caution: those who lessened their own culpability by implicating others were a particular danger. It's possible the jury treated Vincent's evidence with the level of caution you'd treat a fast ball outside leg stump - 'we'll let this one go through to the keeper'. With Riley having been married to Vincent, it's possible the jury felt the word of New Zealand cricket captain Brendon McCullum was not enough to convict on: for perjury, you need more than one man's word against another.
Orlando Pownall, QC: Cairns had taken wise counsel in Pownall, who was meticulously detailed - sometimes tooth-grindingly so - in his defence. He looked under every rock, questioned every detail, and had a passive-aggressive touch that saw him ask tough questions in a nice way. Crown prosecutor Sasha Wass, QC, was no slouch either. She was a opening bowler who blazed away in very direct and devastating spells of cross examination; Pownall was more akin to a seamer who kept coming back undeterred, nagging away over-after-over tirelessly.
Cairns trial: Why Chris Cairns was found not guilty | Stuff.co.nz
This is a good summary. Talking about something and actually doing it are two different things.
Given he won his original suit against Modi and now has been found not guilty of perjury, will this put him in a stronger position for any legal action by Modi?
I feel for Vincent too. I've met him and he was very nice and polite. Gave me the full on "bro" handshake when we'd just met.
I'm not making excuses for the likes of Cairns, Vincent and co, but I have some sympathy for them.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Being found not guilty of perjury won't matter. The criminal court has a far higher standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) than the civil courts (balance of probabilities). It actually puts him in a far weaker position. But given the nature of the evidence against him, I'm still not sure he'll get done - as hendrix noted Vincent and Riley are both compromised witnesses, so the entire thing would hang on McCullum's testimony.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
the world isn't divided into criminals and good people
What will Modi's case be then?