RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION

DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Venue: Holiday Inn, M62, Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Dates: 27th March and 2nd April 2019

JUDGMENT

Player: Calum Green

Club: Newcastle Falcons

Match: Newcastle Falcons v Sale Sharks

Match Date: 23rd March 2019

Match Venue: St James Park, Newcastle – upon – Tyne

Panel: Ian Unsworth Q.C. (Chairman), John Greenwood and Anthony Wheat

Secretary: Rebecca Morgan, RFU Disciplinary Hearings Manager

Attending: Calum Green (the Player) Newcastle Falcons Nicholas Lumley QC, Counsel for the Player (2nd April only) Ben Campbell, Junior Counsel (2nd April only) Kingsley Hyland (representing the Player) on 27th March only Dean Richards, Director of Rugby, Newcastle Falcons

David Barnes, Head of Discipline RFU Philip Clemo, Counsel for the RFU (2nd April only)

Rob Webber, Player Sale Sharks Steve Diamond, Director of Rugby, Sale Sharks Peter Anglesea, Forwards Coach, Sale Sharks

1

Professor Geoffrey Craig, Emeritus Professor of Oral Pathology & Forensic Odontology

Decision

1. There was no case to answer and, accordingly, the citing was dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. There was no objection to the composition of the Panel.

3. On the 27th March 2019 following the hearing of preliminary submissions, we directed that the case be adjourned and directed that a report should be obtained from an independent medical expert specialising in forensic odontology.

4. In accordance with that direction Professor Geoffrey Craig, Emeritus Professor of Oral Pathology & Forensic Odontology was instructed. He produced a detailed report, dated 1st April 2019. We are very grateful to him for producing such a detailed report in such a short space of time.

5. At the initial hearing we issued further directions to ensure the smooth running of the hearing and, subsequently, the Chairman issued additional directions with a view to ensure that this important case could be heard as soon as possible whilst ensuring fairness to all sides.

6. Regrettably, Mr Kingsley Hyland, the Player’s representative at the hearing of the 27th March was unable to present at the adjourned hearing. We are extremely grateful to him for his assistance and regret that we were unable to accommodate him in respect of the adjourned hearing.

7. We extend our thanks to all parties for the efficient and professional manner in which they have approached this case.

Charge and Plea

8. It is alleged that Calum Green bit an opponent, Rob Webber. The charge sheet read as follows: -

2 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

9.12 – A Player must not physically abuse anyone including biting

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

In a Gallagher Premiership game between Newcastle Falcons and Sale Sharks on the 23rd March 2019, Calum Green of Newcastle Falcons bit an opponent. The incident occurred in the 22nd minute of the first half.

Plea

8. Given the desire for further independent medical evidence at the time of the original hearing we took no plea from the Player at that stage. At the hearing on the 2nd April, the charge was put to him and the Player pleaded Not Guilty to this charge. In fairness, we were aware that he had vigorously denied the charge from the very outset of these proceedings.

Background

9. On the 23rd March 2019, Newcastle Falcons hosted Sale Sharks at St James’ Park, Newcastle in the Gallagher Premiership.

10. The referee was Craig Maxwell – Keys, his assistant referees were Adam Leal and Wayne Fella. The Television Match Official (TMO) was Sean Davey.

11. There was an incident in the 22nd minute of the first half: the score was 3-10 at that time. The referee’s audio recording captured Rob Webber, the Sale Hooker stating, “He’s just bitten me”, and then, a short time later, “He bit me, he bit me, Calum Green.” The referee indicated that he had not seen the incident and referred it to the TMO.

The Citing Complaint

12. The Citing Commissioner, in his report of the 23rd March 2019 then described what happened thereafter and the basis for his citing (in bold):

“Incident referred to TMO, some technical issues with speed to show footage and clarity on big screen. Referee reports to have witnessed

3 mark on wrist of S2 immediately after incident. TMO confirms that arm of S2 is across the face of N4, but does not have conclusive evidence of bite taking place, however states there is contact between face and arm.

I gathered photographic evidence1 of the alleged resulting injury as the very aggrieved player entered the changing room at half time which has been forwarded with this report. I then consulted the referee as to his viewpoint on the incident and injury. He had not seen the incident but when consulted about the injury said "it looked like a bite".

A statement is also included from S2 Rob Webber the alleged victim detailing his responses to specific questions relating to the incident2.

Newcastle kick deep into the '22 of Sale and make a follow up tackle just outside the 5yd line. From the ensuing ruck S8 picks and carries round the corner infield with S2 in tight support. S8 is tackled by N4 supported by N18. S2 clears N4 from the ball and is initially bound round the body of N4, reverse angle shows the left arm is under the armpit of N4. TV footage of the incident is mainly obscured; however there is an angle which shows S2 raise his right arm across the face of N4 and then clasp his wrist with the left hand and tighten his grip. At this stage the inner right forearm of S2 is across the face/mouth of N4. Although no clear bite can be seen, the area of contact correlates exactly with the injury photographed at half time. S2 releases his hold a split moment later. N4 gets to his feet. S2 can be seen immediately to turn his wrist upwards and look down at the injury, then wrestles himself free from being bound into the ruck springs to his feet and confronts N4. The pair become embroiled in collar grabbing posturing which is the catalyst for several other players to rush in causing a melee on field in which there was no serious foul play. After the situation had calmed down S2 along with captain S8 can be seen and heard reporting the allegation to the referee along with the alleged culprit being N4 (Calum Green).

Neither referee nor AR had seen the incident so passed to TMO for review. Bearing in mind there had already been a lengthy stoppage using TMO to determine off side and a possible grounding for a try pressure was mounting for the game to restart. TMO reported that he cannot see a clear bite, but does see contact with the arm across the face. Therefore

1 Seen by the Panel

2 See below

4 did not have clear evidence to act on the accusation. Play restarted with a penalty for offside by Newcastle.

Having reviewed all footage available to me, the statements of Sale 2 and the referee, I hereby cite Calum Green of Newcastle Falcons under law 9.12 (Biting).”

Material before the Panel

13. We had the following material made available to us: -

i. Charge Sheet;

ii. Citing and CCW Report, dated 23rd March 2019;

iii. RFU Regulation 19 -discipline (appendix 2);

iv. Half Time Photographs taken by Scott Needham, Team Manager, Sale Sharks;

v. Half Time photo by Andy Blyth Citing Commissioner;

vi. Statement contained within email from Peter Anglesea, dated 25th March 2019;

vii. Statement/ Report from Dr Imran Ahmed, Club Doctor, Sale Sharks, contained within email dated 24th March 2019;

viii. Rob Webber answers to questions asked by the Citing Commissioner;

ix. Statement of the referee Craig Maxwell – Keys contained within an email dated 26th March 2019;

x. Position statement of Kingsley Hyland, solicitor for Calum Green dated 27th March 2019;

xi. Statement of Calum Green;

xii. Statement (undated) Dr. Peter Douglas, Emergency Medicine Consultant;

5

xiii. Harry Williams- character reference;

xiv. Fraser Balmain - character reference;

xv. Ed Slater - character reference;

xvi. John Wells - character reference;

xvii. Paul Merton- character reference;

xviii. 2 photographs of Mr. Webber’s arm, taken on 27th March 2019;

xix. Transcript of the recording of the referee audio;

xx. Further statement of Dr. Imran Ahmed contained within an email, dated 28th March 2019;

xxi. Report of Professor Geoffrey Terence Craig, Emeritus Professor of Oral Pathology & Forensic Odontology, dated 1st April 2019;

xxii. Original Citing footage;

xxiii. Enhanced and slowed footage

xxiv. Enhanced footage with stop clock;

xxv. Wide Angle footage (Pete Anglesea witness Statement);

xxvi. Ref Microphone Footage to next Scrum; and xxvii. 8 images of sample bites provided by Professor Green at the time of the second hearing.

6 Evidence

The Referee – Craig Maxwell – Keys

14. As stated by the Citing Commissioner, the referee was unsighted as to the incident.

15. In his statement Mr Maxwell – Keys stated: -

“There was a clear dispute between S2 and N4. I went around to the far side of the breakdown where this was happening to try and sort the issue. During this time a S defensive box kick had been charged down and had led to a potential try by N. Before reviewing the potential try with the TMO more players became involved in the dispute adding to what could be described as a fracas. Whilst they were being separated S2 made an allegation of a bite and showed me a mark on his arm. He also showed this to AR1. After asking who was responsible S2 informed me it was N4.

The whole sequence was therefore then referred to the TMO. The first part involved reviewing the potential try and subsequently the allegation of a bite. The try was disallowed due to a N offside.

With regards to the bite allegation there was only circumstantial evidence; the mark itself and the arm of S2 across the face of N4. There was no footage of a biting action by N4 on S2. I deemed I could take no further action with regards to the biting allegation noting the above.”

16. Mr Maxwell - Keys did not give evidence before us.

The Injured Player - Rob Webber

17. In questions asked by the Citing Commissioner the Player, Rob Webber answered as follows: -

1. When did the biting incident occur? (Ensure the player is as specific as possible, re: time in the first or second half, where on the pitch, what was happening when the incident occurred (e.g. scrum, maul etc.))

7 1st half. 22 minutes. In the Sale 22 bottom left corner. Jono Ross carries the ball on a pick and go, I am clearing that ruck. Sale are attempting to clear their lines with a box kick.

2. Where exactly did the bite occur on your body?

Right hand wrist about inch below my hand.

3. How long was the pressure applied for? Was it (i) a clamp with pressure, (ii) a mere nip or (iii) a slow increase in pressure?

A clamp with pressure

4. Who was responsible? How you know it was that person, did you see them bite you? Did the person have a gum- shield in?

Calum Green. He was the only person in attendance. He admitted it on the pitch. I don't think he had a gum shield in as there was top and bottom teeth marks on my arm)

5. Did you suffer any injury as a result of the contact? Was the skin broken? Was there bruising?

The skin was slightly broken and a small amount of blood appeared. It now looks like two scratches (top and bottom teeth). There is a little bruising now.

6. Did you receive any medical attention following the bite? (If yes, a medical report should be sought)

The doctor checked it at half time and post-game. He recommended Antibiotics because the skin was broken. he couldn't attend at the time because he was off the field with one of our players for an HIA.

7. Have you got any photographic evidence of the bite? (If no, have you got any bite marks that can be photographed? Ensure the team manager or a witness is in attendance)

The citing officer took pictures at half time. Our team manager Scott Needham also took pictures. The indentations

8 of the teeth in the round bite mark have now gone and just the scratches if broken skin is left.

8. Did any other members of your team witness the bite? (If yes, obtain names and statements if possible)

Nobody witnessed the actual bite due to the positioning of the ruck. However, several teammates saw the bite mark after the bite. Jono Ross our captain. The referee also saw the bite mark.

9. Have you spoken to your team manager about the incident? (If not, why not? If yes, seek explanation from team manager)

Yes, I have spoken to him about it.

10. What caused the incident in the first instance?

I’m not too sure, we were just in a ruck and I’m bracing against him to avoid a counter ruck.

11. Did you react to being bitten? If yes, in what manner?

My initial reaction was to look at my right wrist. Once i saw the bite mark and realised what had happened I then stood up and confronted Calum Green. A pushing match ensued.

12. Did you speak to the alleged offender? Have you had any previous history with the alleged offender?

I confronted him immediately on the pitch during the pushing match, immediately after the bite. I said, 'Why have you bitten me!?' He replied, 'If you put your arm near my mouth, I’m going to bite you!' Then in the dead time whilst the referee was checking with the TMO he wandered over to me and said the same thing. I have had no previous dealings with Calum Green of any kind.

13. Did you mention the incident to the referee? (If no, why not? If yes, seek confirmation from referee and/or ARs)

9 Yes, I immediately went to show the referee the bite mark. Which was clear to see. The referee 100% agreed I'd been bitten and asked the TMO to check. After the check the referee said 'I’m sorry I can't get a better angle of the actual bite, you've clearly been bitten. I’m as frustrated as you!'

14. Is there any other information we should be aware of?

I have no more information.

18. In his evidence before us Rob Webber confirmed the truth and accuracy of his responses.

19. He was asked to look at the slowed down enhanced footage and provided us with an explanation as to what had happened. Rob Webber told us that he felt a bite on his arm and looked at his arm to see what had happened – he said he saw that he had sustained an injury. He said that he then asked Calum Green” Why the fuck have you bitten me”, whereupon Calum Green responded,” If you put your arm in my mouth that is what I will do. “

20. He said that he spoke to the referee at the time, reported what had happened and showed him the bite

21. We watched the wider footage. This showed Calum Green approaching Rob Webber by the 5-metre line. Calum Green raised his arm to his mouth – when he was closer, he said:

“If you put your arm in my mouth, I will bite you”.

A number of people were around, one of whom was the coach Peter Anglesea. Peter Anglesea then said,

“I have heard that/ him”

22. The referee said to him that he thought it looked like he had been bitten.

23. In cross – examination. Rob Webber denied that he had injured his arm earlier.

10 24. Mr Lumley QC began by playing some earlier footage. This was just after 11 minutes into the game. It showed an earlier incident in which Rob Webber held out his right arm to Newcastle 15. His right arm appeared to collide with the right side of the face of the Newcastle 15. We watched the play for a few minutes and Rob Webber showed no sign of being aware of sustaining any injury at that time.

25. He was then asked about his positioning before the alleged bite. He said that he held Calum Green in a brace position. He said that he held his right arm under the head/ face and neck area of Calum Green and then brought his left arm toward the right and then held them in a clasping action. He said it was wrong in the eyes of the law and had received a warning from the Citing Commissioner. He denied that he intended to apply pressure to the neck and face of Calum Green.

26. The relevant part of the Citing Commissioner’s report regarding Rob Webber’s behaviour was read out and shown to Rob Webber. It said:

“ S2 raised his right arm across the face of N4 and then clasped his wrist with the left hand and tightened his grip. “

27. Rob Webber disputed the description but accepted that he had been in the wrong.

28. It was put to him that there was no bite and that any injury was caused as Calum Green was trying to extract his head. He denied this.

29. He was aware that there was to be a review by the TMO of the disputed try. He denied that he was concerned that the officials would see what he had been doing. He denied that he was seeking to try and distract the referee from carrying out a proper analysis of the footage.

30. He said that he had discussed what had happened in the locker room with Peter Anglesea but had not spoken to him prior to providing his answers.

31. He said that Calum Green had accused him of putting his arm near his mouth.

32. We looked at the Sportscode footage at 29:10. This showed the players awaiting the decision by the TMO and Referee. He denied that

11 Calum Green mentioned anything about being throttled. He put his arm across his face as he did so.

33. There were 5 further Sale players nearby.

34. He said that biting was a serious business and that any player would face serious consequences. He denied that the only people who heard the alleged confession was himself and Peter Anglesea.

35. He agreed that neither he, nor anyone else including Peter Anglesea had reported the alleged confession to the referee at the time or any point.

36. He was asked about question 13 in the Citing Commissioners Q & A document-

Did you mention the incident to the referee? (If no, why not? If yes, seek confirmation from referee and/or ARs)

Yes, I immediately went to show the referee the bite mark. Which was clear to see. The referee 100% agreed I'd been bitten and asked the TMO to check. After the check the referee said 'I’m sorry I can't get a better angle of the actual bite, you've clearly been bitten. I’m as frustrated as you!'

37. He maintained that this was accurate.

38. He was then taken to the transcript of the audio recording (page 27 of the Bundle). It was put to him that the referee did not say he agreed “100%” He agreed that the transcript did not show this but denied that he was trying to make it worse for Calum Green.

39. He candidly admitted that he was concerned at how the Citing Commissioner might interpret his actions. He was referred to page 10, Q 10.

What caused the incident in the first instance?

I’m not too sure, we were just in a ruck and I’m bracing against him to avoid a counter ruck.

12 He agreed that he could have given more information to the Crown Court Citing Commissioner but denied that he had deliberately withheld information. He said that there was no bad faith.

40. He was taken to Q3

How long was the pressure applied for? Was it (i) a clamp with pressure, (ii) a mere nip or (iii) a slow increase in pressure?

A clamp with pressure

41. He said that this was hard enough that this could only have been caused by a bite by Calum Green.

42. In re -examination, Rob Webber said that he was not medically qualified. We watched the relevant (referee microphone) footage again and our attention was drawn to the transcript:

CMK: It’s a ruck N10: Sir, he pushed me CMK: Stay out

ALLEGED INCIDENT OCCURS

CMK: OK, use that please CMK: No (kick charged down) S2: He’s just bitten me Sale player: Offside N2: Check it try sir

43. We watched and listened to the footage on a number of occasions.

44. He estimated that his hands were clasped for a matter of seconds. We were taken to the timed footage which appeared to show that this clasping action lasted for just less than one second (approximately recording times 01.76 to 2.66). It was not his intention to “choke him out”.

45. He said that he tried to be a very physical player but had not gone to the Referee earlier and that it was not his practise to get another player into trouble.

13 46. He said that you don’t expect biting to happen in the game. This had never happened in 15 years of playing rugby. He was certain that this was a bite.

47. On the footage he said that the bite had taken place at approximately tape time 02:28.

48. Rob Webber was then shown additional footage (Sportscode 01:06) concerning an unrelated event. He said that he was intending to drive through the tackle. He was then shown an event at 01:30:25 – he said that he was trying to clear out a ruck, that this was safe. The ball had clearly left but said that perhaps he hadn’t noticed that the ball had left (as it clearly had). He was then taken to tape time 01:41:05. He denied that the relevant event showed anything unlawful. We were reminded that in relation to these events none were picked up by the Citing Commissioner as warranting further action.

49. Asked by the Panel, Rob Webber said that he didn’t see what was happening. He did not actually see the bite. He said that he felt a very short, intense pain: he had looked down and believed straight away that he had been bitten.

Photographs taken at the time

50. In his answers Rob Webber indicated that there were two photographs taken at the time. We had sight of these.

51. The first was a photograph taken by Scott Needham, Sale Sharks Team Manager. The second photograph was also taken at half time by Andy Blyth, the Citing Commissioner:

14 Later Photographs

52. On the day of the original hearing we were also shown 2 further photographs that we were told had been taken that afternoon (the 27th March 2019):

Sale Sharks Coach - Peter Anglesea

53. In his statement Peter Anglesea, forwards coach stated that he heard Calum Green confess to biting Rob Webber: -

“At the Newcastle Falcons v Sale Sharks game, one of my roles on game day is to assist the team by carrying water onto the field during the game. After a break in play, I went onto the pitch to attend to the team as normal. After several minutes of being on the field due to the lengthy stoppage, I became aware of Calum Green leaving his team mates and coming over to the Sale Sharks players, aiming directly for Rob Webber in an aggressive manor (sic). I then heard Calum Green say to Rob Webber “If you put your fucking arm in my mouth then I’m going to bite it” Rob Webber replied, “Well if you’re admitting to it, go and tell that to the ref”. Calum Green then left and went back to his team mates.”

15 54. In his evidence before us Peter Anglesea confirmed the truth and accuracy of his statement. He was shown the wide -angle footage and repeated what he had heard from where he was. His initial thoughts were that Calum Green appeared aggressive and that he got as close as he could in case the situation deteriorated. He said, “If you put your arm in my mouth then I’m going to fucking bite it” He said that he heard this once at around the time Calum Green lifted his arm to his mouth (Calum Green was walking at this time and Mr Anglesea was about 3- 4 metres away). He said that Calum Green was loud and aggressive. He said Rob Webber laughed and very calmly told Calum Green to go and tell the referee. He said that he told Rob Webber that he had heard this.

55. He said that he didn’t report it as it was not his job to report this on the pitch and that he should not speak to the Referee. He said that when he got back to the bench, he told his colleagues that Rob Webber had been bitten; he didn’t say to them that he had heard a confession.

56. In cross - examination he disagreed that it was too noisy to hear this at the time that he said it had been heard. He agreed that there were other people nearby but that he could not say what they heard.

57. He said at half time Mr. Blyth had indicated that he wanted to take a photograph.

58. He said that he saw Rob Webber’s arm on the pitch but didn’t ask to look at it at that time. He was certain that he had seen it and that it looked “purple”. He said that there was an indentation that looked like top and bottom teeth marks. He did not seek medical assistance as this was not his role.

59. At half time he could not recall seeing the injury – he was pre- occupied with other matters.

60. He denied that he was mistaken as to what he had heard.

61. He stressed that Sale Sharks were a disciplined team and it was for the Captain to speak to the referee not for other players or him.

The Accused Player – Calum Green

62. In his statement Calum Green stated: -

16 “I have been charged with an offence of biting contrary to Law 9.12 following a citing arising from an incident in the match between Newcastle Falcons and Sale Sharks on Saturday 23 March 2019.

I have seen the documents contained in the hearing bundle submitted on 25 March.

The Citing Commissioner’s report sets out the background to the incident from which the charge arises and this is my account of that incident which I believe is supported by a detailed analysis of the available video footage.

Following a kick through to within 8-9m of the Sale line on their left-hand side a ruck was formed, and I found myself at the left guard position. Jono Ross the Sale captain, who was on the ball at the rear of the ruck, picked and carried into me. I made a shoulder high dominant tackle and started to push Ross backwards. He had Rob Webber behind waiting to latch onto him and as the contact was made, he joined the tackle. I started to push Ross backwards slightly and the tackle was joined by one other player from each side, Davey Wilson from us and Ross Harrison I think from Sale. As Jono Ross started to move backwards he dropped to the floor making the tackle complete.

I had both of my hands around the ball area and went off my feet with the tackled player. As we go to the floor Ross Harrison initially grabbed my left arm.

At this stage I am trapped on top of Jonno Ross with my right arm through to near where the ball was and my left arm being wrestled by Ross Harrison, this effectively pinned me where I was. Rob Webber is lying on me with his left arm gripping under my right arm and his right arm is near my face with his forearm near my mouth.

At this stage his arms aren’t connected but he is trying to squeeze my jaw with his left forearm in an attempt to choke me.

17 He then clasps both hands together to form a stronger grip and tightens the hold around my mouth pushing my head down and choking me in the process. I started to panic as I felt that I couldn’t breathe, his hands were over my mouth which was open, and I couldn’t release myself from the hold. I struggled for what seemed quite some time and eventually broke free just at the point I felt I was going to lose consciousness.

The whole incident only lasted a matter of seconds and as I pulled away, I swore at him as I felt he had deliberately tried to throttle me unconscious. He then accused me of having bitten him. I genuinely cannot remember having bitten him.

At the time I was struggling to defend myself from being throttled unconscious and tried to free myself from the vice like grip he had around my neck. I have seen the evidence of the Citing Commissioner and the photographs in the hearing bundle. I accept that this is indicative of at least some contact between my mouth and his arm.

It is not in my nature to have deliberately bitten someone and I would have only done so in self defence to stop Webber throttling me further although as I have said, I cannot recall having done so. I didn’t actually lose consciousness although it started to get to the stage whereby, I was slightly dizzy and had I not been released at that time I feel I would have gone into an unconscious state within a very short time. Whilst he had his arm across my mouth, I had my mouth open and was not wearing a gum shield.

I have never worn a gumshield as I find them uncomfortable and they restrict my breathing. I will also say that had I not struggled free I am sure he would have continued to strangle me I have seen people in Mixed Martial Arts fights be choked unconscious in around five seconds.

I have been shown the answers that Rob Webber has given in the questionnaire from the Citing Commissioner.

18 Whilst I have accepted that there must have been some contact between my mouth and his arm which could have caused the reported injury, I categorically deny having ‘clamped’ my teeth with pressure on his arm. I believe that the short time span of the incident, as confirmed by the footage, gives the lie to this allegation. I do not believe that the reported injury is consistent with such an action as he has alleged. I also categorically deny Webber’s claim that I told him that I would bite him if he put his arm near my mouth either initially immediately following the incident or subsequently when the officials were consulting with the TMO.

I do accept that when the officials were consulting with the TMO I moved towards Webber, but this was to remonstrate with him over what he had been doing to me.

The footage shows me repeatedly demonstrating to him what he had been doing to me.

I am now 28 years old. I started playing rugby at the age of 5 at Norwich Crusaders RFC.

After a season there I joined Norwich RFC and spent six seasons there before moving onto North Walsham RFC”.

I joined the Leicester Tigers Academy at 17 and spent five years at Leicester before moving to Leeds Tykes/Carnegie. I spent two seasons at Leeds and have been at Newcastle for five seasons.

I have one previous disciplinary finding – I believe that details of this have been provided.”

Video Recordings

63. We had available to use much more footage than was available to the TMO at the time of the relevant events. We were able to observe the original citing footage and 4 additional clips.

i. Original Citing footage

ii. Enhanced and slowed footage

19

iii. Enhanced footage with stop clock

iv. Wide Angle footage (Pete Anglesea witness statement)

v. Ref Mic Footage to next scrum

64. In addition, at the hearing, we were invited to observe some further footage from Sportscode.

Initial Medical Evidence

Dr. Ahmed – Sale Sharks Club Doctor

65. Rob Webber was seen by a Doctor on the field of play. That was Dr Imran Ahmed, Club Doctor to Sale Sharks, who provided two statements. The first, contained in an email of the 24th March 2019 stated: -

“At the time of the incident involving Rob Webber, I was performing a HIA on another player, but was told that there had been an incident on the field involving Rob by Nav Sandhu, our physio pitchside, via our radios.

I was told I was not needed immediately pitchside but would need to attend a bite on the arm.

The first opportunity to do this was half time, when there was a clear bite radius on the ventral aspect of Robs forearm.

Having worked as a doctor for 20 years, including working in Accident and Emergency, and dermatology, I feel confident in identifying bites, and this looked very clearly human in nature, and a fresh wound.

There were clear abrasions and my concern was that the bite has broken the skin. As per infection control protocol, this would require antibiotics to prevent transmission of infection from mouth borne bacteria. If such a wound is not attended to this way, the risks of infection is high, as the wounding is not a clean mechanism.

Local infection of the wound, abscess formation, whole limb cellulitis and infection of underlying muscular tissues are all recognised complications,

20 and we are also unaware of whether this individual carries any systemic infectious diseases that could be transmitted via saliva.

As part of this process, I would be grateful if the offending player could confirm either directly or via his medical team, whether he has taken part in the premiership hepatitis B programme, and whether he has been screened for hepatitis c or HIV, as this will all impact on the management of our player.”

Dr. Douglas – provided by Newcastle Falcons

66. On the date of the original hearing we were also furnished with a medical report from a Dr. Peter Douglas, Emergency Medical Consultant. This (undated) statement said: -

“My name is Dr. Peter Douglas and my qualifications are MBBS 1999 (Newcastle), MRCEM, FRCEM. I have practised as an Emergency Medicine Consultant since January 2010 and am currently in full time employment.

I am not currently or have ever been employed by Newcastle Falcons Rugby Club. I have no pecuniary interest in the writing of this statement. I have reviewed 2 photographs that were taken at half time in the match between Newcastle Falcons and Sale Sharks. I have not seen the injuries in person and have only reviewed the photographs that were taken at this time.

The photos are of the volar aspect (palm side) of the Sale player’s right forearm. On review of the images, there appears to be a small laceration or abrasion on the radial aspect (thumb side of the forearm) and a linear abrasion towards the centre of the forearm. I am unable to state with certainty the distance between these. There also appears to be some reddened areas adjacent to the laceration or abrasion on the radial side of the forearm. The injuries appear very superficial in nature but there is a break to the skin.

The mechanism that has been described to me is that Calum Green was being choked from behind by a Sale Sharks player. He had his left arm around his chest and neck and his right arm around the Calum Green's face. The right forearm was pulled forcefully into the mouth area of the player and he felt he was losing consciousness from the choke hold being applied.

21 In my opinion, on the balance of probabilities, having reviewed the pictures provided, I feel these injuries could be consistent with a forearm being forcefully pulled into the mouth and teeth area as described above. It does not appear to be the type of wound that I would expect to see from a clamp down bite.

This statement is based on my experience as an Emergency Medicine Consultant of over 9 years, but I have had no forensic training.”

Response from Dr. Ahmed – Sale Sharks Club Doctor

67. As indicated Dr Ahmed made two statements. The second statement was by way of a response to that of Dr Douglas. In his second statement, contained within an email, dated 28th March 2019, he responded as follows: -

“My qualifications in writing this report are a medical professional for 20 years including roles in accident and emergency, and general practice.

I have worked pitchside in rugby at amateur and professional levels for 10 years, with appropriate pitchside and pre-hospital medical training. I also hold a post graduate diploma in dermatology. I am a GP with special interest in dermatology and work alongside consultants and the east Cheshire multi disciplinary team. I feel this places me in a good position to assess skin lesions.

In the interests of honesty and probity, according to GMC guidance, I declare that I am the club doctor for Sale Sharks, but I have no relationship to Mr Webber other than a professional one and have not been reimbursed for this report. I have no connection to Newcastle Falcons.

My observations of the injury at the time of the incident have been summarised in my previous report.

Looking at the pictures of the wound, one can see 2 breaks in the skin, one more linear in nature, one a smaller puncture wound.

This is supported by the later pictures which seem to show the two wounds scabbed over. I believe Dr. Douglas would have been shown the images by Dr. Shipsey, the Newcastle match day doctor, as they are both emergency medicine doctors together in Northumberland. I am not aware that Dr. Douglas has examined Mr Webber in person.

22

My understanding is that Mr Green has suggested that he was in the process of passing out, and that Mr Webber's arm was forced into his open mouth, causing the breaks in the skin.

I find this contradicts my thoughts for two reasons.

Firstly, if an individual is losing consciousness, their jaw, tongue and airways would become floppy and unsupportive of their airway.

This is why we as doctors are required to use artificial airways in unconscious patients to ensure breathing is able to continue.

This is also why, if a person is undergoing surgery, they will be put to sleep first using the 'black mask' prior to an artificial airways being put in. It is much easier to work with a passive, unconscious airway.

As such, if Mr Green were losing consciousness, I feel the force of an arm being inserted in his mouth would probably dislocate his jaw or break his teeth, before the skin was punctured.

Breaking teeth is indeed a recognised complication of inserting artificial airways in an operating theatre setting, on unconscious patients.

Secondly, it would contradict my thoughts on the grounds of skin structure. Skin is very flexible and malleable, especially on the fleshier areas of the ventral forearm.

In my reading, it is estimated that it takes pressure of approximately 100psi to break the skin and this is why medical needle points are required to be so sharp, as it will apply this pressure over a small surface area with a small amount of force.

In context, the average pressure in a car tyre is around 35 psi.

As such, an enormous amount of pressure would be required to passively puncture the skin of a person against the passive teeth of a person losing consciousness

By contrast, the human bite pressure is estimated around 150-200 psi. This would be sufficient to break the skin.”

Independent Medical Evidence

23

68. Even without having the sight of the above response (which was provided subsequently) it was abundantly clear, at the time of the original hearing that there was no agreement as to the nature of the injury. One doctor (appointed by Sale Sharks) indicated that this was, in his view, a clear bite. Another Doctor (instructed by Newcastle Falcons) indicated, in his view, that it was not.

69. Whilst we were clear that this was not to be “trial by expert” we were also of the view that there might be real value in being assisted by an expert odontologist who, in fairness to the other doctors, actually specialised in bites and bite marks. This was, after all, an area of genuine expertise and specialisation. Each doctor had no doubt sought to assist us as best they could, but the Panel were concerned to ensure that we had the opportunity to consider any expert independent medical evidence that might be of assistance.

70. In accordance with our directions, the parties jointly instructed Professor Geoffrey Craig, Emeritus Professor of Oral Pathology & Forensic Odontology. We are very grateful to him for assisting us and to the parties for facilitating this with such efficiency.

Professor Geoffrey Craig, Emeritus Professor of Oral Pathology & Forensic Odontology

71. Professor Geoffrey Craig, Emeritus Professor of Oral Pathology & Forensic Odontology retired from the University of Sheffield and the Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2008. Since then he has continued to act as an expert.

72. He has been a Forensic Dental Adviser to the Home Office since 1970. He has taught and lectured on the subject of Forensic Odontology to a wide range of professional audiences and specialist societies both nationally and internationally.

73. He demitted office in November 2008 after two years as President of the British Association for Forensic Odontology and recently stood down as their Academic & Scientific Adviser, and Chair of the Professional Accreditation Committee. He has a special interest and expertise in bite mark investigation and analysis and has given evidence as an expert witness on this subject in numerous Civil (Child Care) & Criminal proceedings. To date, he estimates that he has examined and

24 reported on well over 550 suspected bite marks, including a number of suspected animal bites. In this context, he has appeared for both the Prosecution and Defence.

74. In his report dated the 1st April 2019 he explained the nature of his instructions and contact with the parties.

75. In his detailed report, Professor Craig considered all the available and relevant evidence including the images set out above.

76. His clear and unequivocal view was that: -

(i) The injury complexes shown in the two match day photographs did not reveal a human bite mark;

(ii) The healing photographs showing scratches and abrasions with some loss of scab were of such an appearance that he had never seen as a response to a human bite mark.

(iii) The description of “clamp-down” bite can be explained. He had seen such injuries before, usually associated with attempts to restrain a person from behind by holding an arm around the front of their face/neck with the forearm of the restraining arm being very close to if not actually obstructing the mouth of the person being restrained, akin to the so-called “choke-hold” that is now banned for use by Police;

(iv) There was no laceration on Rob Webber’s right forearm; and

(v) The injuries sustained by Rob Webber are minor abrasions.

77. Professor Craig indicated that he had been involved in Criminal Cases where allegations have been made by Police Officers that they were simply attempting to restrain a suspect in the manner described above when the suspect allegedly bit them on the inside of their forearms; in truth the injuries were invariably non-specific, as seen in the present case, He stated that he came to this possible explanation for the injuries to Rob Webber’s right forearm as soon as he examined the images and well before he read Dr. Douglas’ statement or that of Calum Green.

78. Professor Craig also made observations concerning the evidence of the other medics which we gave such weight to as was appropriate.

25

79. In his evidence before us Professor Craig explained that a part of the body that is closer to bone is more likely to leave a distinctive or obvious mark.

80. He explained that the dynamics of an event may have relevance. This was clearly a dynamic event but that he was constrained by the available evidence: there was simply no vestige of tooth marks, either individual or multiple.

81. Professor Craig provided us with 8 examples of bite marks and described to us what he would be looking for in terms of a bite mark.

82. He explained the proper way in which to enhance images. The half - time photographs in this case were acceptable for his use.

83. The duration and force of a bite were relevant. He said that he could not see any evidence of a bite. The time that elapsed from the incident was such that he would have expected there to have been a sign of this at the time of the photographs.

84. The imprints of a bite mark may be seen immediately, bruising then may appear and then disappear altogether.

85. He explained the coloring nature of bruises and how it is widely accepted that the colour of bruising does not assist with ageing the injury. The exception to this is the appearance of a yellow bruise which suggests the injury occurred between 18 and 24 hours previously.

86. He said that what he saw were extremely minor injuries the type of which one might suffer whilst gardening.

87. When asked by Mr Lumley QC about Rob Webber’s description of “a very severe, really sharp pain” he said that he would expect that to leave some injury soon afterwards. At half time, there would have been marks present which were attributable to teeth.

88. He was asked to explain non -specific – this meant that he could not attribute cause. There was nothing in what he had seen which pointed to a bite mark. He said that he had seen scratches like that seen in the photographs caused by finger nails.

26 89. He highlighted that the scab appears to have fallen away in the later photographs.

90. Professor Craig highlighted the independent nature of his evidence. In a living subject one might expect to see marks that simply do not appear in these photographs.

91. He found the explanation offered by Dr. Douglas to be a plausible one.

92. His ultimate conclusions were as follows:

(i) The injury on the right forearm of Rob Webber does not qualify for recognition or classification as a definite human bite mark;

(ii) The injuries in the inner surface of Rob Webber’s right forearm are nonspecific i.e. they do not indicate a causative agent; and

(iii) The injuries are most likely to have occurred in the manner described by Calum Green, and as supported by his own experience of such injuries following so-called “choke- holding” grips, whether intentional or otherwise, applied from behind.

93. Professor Craig did not exclude the possibility of contact between teeth and body but said that there was both an absence of marks that he would expect to see and, in addition, that which was present appeared to be nothing like a bite mark.

Character Evidence

94. The Panel received character evidence from 5 people who all knew the Player. They were opponents, a coach and a Baptist Minister.

95. It is clear that they all felt that these allegations were very much out of character from the man they know.

96. Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs) stated, “Having played against Calum every season for the last five years both in the Championship and Premiership, the recent allegation against him seems very out of

27 character compared to the man I have played against. While Calum pulls no punches and plays a hard physical game. I just couldn't see him doing something as illegal as what he is being accused”

97. Fraser Balmain (Gloucester) observed “Here’s my thoughts on playing against Calum for the last 7 years. I have played against Calum Green numerous times in my career, and I can whole heartedly say he’s an incredibly physical player who puts his body on the line week in week out and is a player I hugely admire. Every time I have played against him, he’s conducted himself in what I’d say is a great example for anyone to look up to. As I’ve said, incredibly physical which you need to be in his position but always within the rules. Never have I received any foul play from him, and nor have I heard any of my team mates say they have either. Calum is hugely respected within the Premiership by other players for what he brings to the pitch and I can honestly say there is no way I think Calum would have done what he’s been cited for.”

98. Ed Slater (Gloucester) put it this way, “I have always enjoyed playing against Calum, he is a tough and physical opponent who always plays hard, but fair. I have a lot of respect for Calum as a person as well as his rugby ability and over the years have always found him extremely professional in how he conducts himself. I would have no hesitation in fully supporting Calum’s character and professionalism under the circumstances he has been cited and would like to add that he is certainly not a player who would go beyond that line of physicality that is necessary in our sport, to intentionally harm another player.”

99. John Wells, former England Senior squad forwards coach from 2006 – 2011 and currently Newcastle Falcons defence coach told us, “I have known Calum since July 2014 when he joined the Falcons from Leeds Carnegie. Calum is a second row and by the nature of his position he is expected to be tough and abrasive, Calum will always play hard, he will always play committed but he will always play fair. In the 5 seasons I have been working with him he has never crossed the line between doing his job and being damn right dirty. I am therefore surprised and disappointed to hear the allegation put forward regarding Calum. It is not in his character but more to the point he has such respect for the values the game and the opposition that I know he will be distressed and upset by this situation he finds himself.”

100. Finally, the chaplain to Newcastle Falcons Rugby Club, the Reverend A. Paul Merton stated, “In writing as Chaplain I offer the disciplinary panel a view in Calum 's defence from both within and from

28 outside the club. In other words, I write from the perspective of being an honorary staff member and also a one-step-removed observer. I have known Calum now for 15 months since I was appointed club Chaplain and I cannot stress too highly what an impressive person and character ·he is. In general, he is polite, friendly and a 'gentle giant’. I have always found him to be respectful, approachable and good-natured. He gives off an air of calm composure. In other words, both on and off the field, he is a very impressive young man. In particular I have watched Calum train and play on many occasions now and he is a consummate sportsman. He appropriately admires opponents, while competing strongly and fairly. In his play he shows a really generous spirit. I therefore find it impossible to believe that Calum would engage in such behaviour as named in the allegation. lt is simply a million miles from the man he is. However, if it is proven that he did, it must be obvious that my opinion is that it would have been absolutely out of character. I can only conclude that in such unlikely circumstances he must have been provoked beyond all reasonable limits. I therefore appeal to the panel on Calum 's behalf to find him not guilty of the alleged offence.”

Submissions

101. Pursuant to Regulation 19 Appendix 7, we were invited to consider whether there was a case to answer. Mr Lumley QC submitted: -

(a) That Rob Webber may have genuinely believed that he was bitten

(b) The expert evidence established that there was not a vestige of evidence that this was a bitemark.

(c) The description of the injury by Peter Anglesea simply didn’t match that as seen and described by Professor Craig.

(d) The evidence of the “confession” was not enough.

(e) Professor Craig’s clear, unvarnished and firm evidence meant that the case did not get off the ground.

(f) That it was not the Player’s assertion that Calum Green was lying but that they accepted that Mr Webber wished to believe that he had been bitten.

29 102. Mr Clemo in response submitted: -

(a) Professor Craig’s evidence was important but not determinative;

(b) There wasn’t much by way of scientific research in relation to his description of ageing of injury;

(c) There was an immediate reaction from Rob Webber

(d) There was an immediate reporting of his injury;

(e) The video footage showed that on any objective view Calum Green’s mouth was close to the arm of Rob Webber.

(f) Rob Webber’s description of “the confession” was important

(g) Peter Anglesea was doing his level best to report what he heard.

(h) On the balance of probabilities this case should proceed.

Ruling

103. We were invited to apply the principles as set out in the case of Galbraith 73 Cr.App.R. 124, CA, in which guidance was given as to the proper approach at the end of a prosecution case.

“(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant there is no difficulty—the judge will stop the case. (2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence, but it is of a tenuous character, for example, because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence. (a) Where the judge concludes that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict on it, it is his duty, on a submission being made, to stop the case. (b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness’s reliability, or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence on which the jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury” (per Lord Lane CJ at p. 127).

30 104. Having considered the relevant evidence, the submissions and applying the appropriate test, in our judgement: -

(a) Rob Webber impressed as a credible and honest witness who genuinely believed that he had been bitten;

(b) He did not see the alleged bite take place;

(c) No one else saw the alleged bite take place;

(d) Rob Webber believed that he had been bitten as a result of feeling a short but intense pain and by seeing what he believed was a bite mark on his arm

(e) Professor Craig was clear: there was no physical evidence of a bite mark.

(f) Moreover, Professor Craig was clear that this positively was not a bite mark.

(g) We were therefore left with no witness to the alleged bite and compelling evidence from a nationally renowned expert that this was positively not a bite

(h) The only additional material evidence to be relied upon was an alleged confession. Whilst, this might have some relevance, we were not satisfied that the wording of it could be described as a confession to a bite as alleged and, even if he had said what was alleged (or something like it) the medical evidence was such that there was no evidence of a bite

105. Accordingly, applying the proper test, and being satisfied that there is no evidence of a bite: (indeed the evidence is that this is positively not a bite) we are under a positive duty to stop the case at this stage.

Decision

106. There being no case to answer this citing is not upheld. The case against Calum Green is dismissed.

31 107. By way of observation, this was a proper case to be cited. The RFU had a positive duty to proceed with it and Rob Webber has been well served.

108. In addition, whilst we are very grateful indeed to all the medics in this case, as a general observation we positively discourage medics who are asked to provide Panels with reports from straying outwith their area of expertise and offering their views on non-medical issues.

109. Calum Green leaves this hearing without a stain on his character. The allegation was an extremely serious one and had to be met. Had the citing been upheld the sanction would have been a significant one. He was represented extremely effectively, and we wish him well for the rest of the season.

110. Nothing in this ruling should be interpreted as any criticism of Rob Webber – far from it, he was a very impressive witness and we accept that he genuinely believed that this was a bite. It is simply that given the evidence of Professor Craig and all other evidence before us we can only conclude that he was wrong. We wish him well for the rest of the season.

111. We repeat our thanks to all parties for their invaluable assistance with this difficult and serious case.

Ian Unsworth QC Chairman

2nd April 2019

32