DISCIPLINARY PANEL
JUDGMENT
Player: Nathan Hughes, Wasps
Panel: Gareth Graham (Chairman), Martyn Wood, Matthew Weaver
Secretary: Rebecca Morgan
HEARING 1
Date: 10 October 2018
Venue: Hilton Hotel, Coventry
RFU Representative: Stuart Tennant
Player’s Representative: Alan Maclean QC
Attending: Dave Bassett, Team Manager, Wasps
Kevin Harman, Head of Recruitment, Wasps
HEARING 2
Date: 17 October 2018
Venue: Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, London
RFU Representative: Kendrah Potts
Player’s Representative: Richard Smith QC
Attending: Stuart Tennant, RFU
David Barnes, RFU
Dave Bassett, Team Manager, Wasps
DECISION
1. The Panel found the charges brought against Nathan Hughes (“the Player”) proven.
2. The Player is suspended from playing for a total of 6 weeks from 9 October 2018 to 19 November 2018 for
the reasons contained herein.
1 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
3. On 10 October 2018, a disciplinary hearing (“Hearing 1”) was convened to hear a single charge against the
Player. The Player was charged with an offence contrary to Law 9.12 of punching or striking (“Charge 1”). It
was said that the Player had punched or struck Lewis Ludlow, Gloucester Rugby, in the match between Wasps
(“the Club”) and Gloucester on 6 October 2018.
4. At Hearing 1, the Player accepted Charge 1. The Panel subsequently received written and oral submissions
from the Parties as to the appropriate sanction. Following due consideration, the Panel found that a mid-range
entry point of 6 weeks was appropriate. That sanction was reduced by 2 weeks by way of mitigation.
5. The Parties were informed orally as to the Panel’s decision and then left the hearing. It transpired that just
moments after leaving the hearing, the Player tweeted on his personal Twitter account “What a joke”
(“the Tweet”).
6. The Panel became aware of the Tweet and reconvened the hearing. By this stage, the Player’s Representative
had left the hearing venue. The Player candidly accepted that the Tweet had been posted by him and related
to the sanction he had received. After discussion as to how matters should proceed, it was agreed that the
hearing should be reconvened a week later to give the RFU and the Player an opportunity to seek legal advice.
7. On 17 October 2018, a further disciplinary hearing (“Hearing 2”) was convened. The Player was subsequently
charged with an offence contrary to Rule 5.12 that, by the Tweet, he had acted in a way that was prejudicial
to the interests of the Union and/or the Game (“Charge 2”). The Player accepted Charge 2 at Hearing 2.
8. Once again, the Panel received detailed and thorough written and oral submissions from the Parties as to the
appropriate course and sanction. Following due consideration, the Panel revisited the sanction it had imposed
for Charge 1 at Hearing 1. It found that the premise upon which it had assessed much of the Player’s mitigation
was false on account of the evidence the Player had given during Hearing 2. The Panel found that the Player
should not receive any mitigation for Charge 1. Thus, the sanction for Charge 1 was amended to a playing
ban of 6 weeks instead of 4.
9. In relation to the act of posting the Tweet, the Panel found that this was distinct from, and should be considered
separate to, Charge 1. In the circumstances, the Panel found that it was appropriate to impose an additional
2 playing ban of 2 weeks for Charge 2. However, when considering the totality of offending and the issue of
proportionality, the Panel elected to run the sanctions concurrently.
10. This document contains the Panel’s reasoned decision, reached after consideration of the evidence, the
written and oral submissions and documentation placed before us. It is a summary. The fact that specific
reference is not made herein to any part or aspect thereof does not mean it was not considered and given the
appropriate weight.
3 HEARING 1
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
11. There was no objection to the composition of the Panel.
CHARGE AND PLEA
12. The Player was charged with an offence of punching or striking, contrary to Law 9.12. The Particulars of
Offence stated as follows:-
“In the match between Wasps and Gloucester on 6 October 2018, Nathan Hughes of Wasps punched or struck
Lewis Ludlow of Gloucester. The incident occurred in the second half of the match.”
13. The Player had been cited by the independent Citing Commissioner, Andy Blyth. The essential elements of
that Citing Report stated as follows:-
Wasps attempt to run the ball out from under their posts searching for a bonus point try in the dieing (sic)
moments. W8 Nathan Hughes carries the ball into contact where he is tackled to the floor in a double tackle
by G13 Billy Twelvetrees and G7 Lewis Ludlow. Ludlow is lying at the feet of Hughes. There is a clear reaction
by Ludlow to something said or done by Hughes. End on footage when zoomed appears to show a slight kick
out by Hughes to the midrift (sic) of Ludlow which then triggers Ludlow to throw himself on top of Hughes who
is lying on his back in a vulnerable position. Ludlow leads with his left forearm to the throat area of Hughes
attempting to pin him to the floor, footage is unclear as to where the first contact is made. The pair become
embroiled in a scuffle on the floor, Ludlow lying prone on top of Hughes. Hughes manages to free his right
arm and strikes Ludlow in the side of the head before shoving him off. There is not a large wind up to the
punch but is a clear clenched fist. Hughes pushes Ludlow to the side. At this stage the referee runs over to
the pair and advises them to stop. Play continues, both players regain their feet and after a brief verbal
exchange both players take up their respective positions. No apparent injuries sustained by either player. The
above actions by Hughes striking Ludlow in the head with clenched fist reach the threshold for a full citing.”
14. The Player accepted the Charge.
4 SUBMISSIONS
THE PLAYER
15. The Panel was invited by the Player’s Representative to view video footage of the incident. It was said that
the footage clearly demonstrated that Lewis Ludlow had his left arm across the Player’s throat and that Ludlow
was the aggressor in the situation. He, Ludlow, had no business in throwing himself on the Player; the Player
was in a vulnerable position. The Player’s aim was to grab Ludlow by the collar of his shirt so as to get Ludlow
off him. It was accepted on the Player’s behalf that in so doing there was contact to Ludlow’s head, hence the
‘guilty plea’.
16. During the Player’s submissions, reference was made to two Regulations which serve to limit the discretion
on any panel when determining sanction. The Player’s Representative referred to these Regulations as judicial
‘straightjackets’. The first of these make it plain that there is a mandatory mid-range entry point where a charge
is either accepted by a player, or established after a hearing, and there is contact to the head of the opposition
player. In this offence, there being a punch or strike to Ludlow’s head, it was accepted by the Player that there
was a mandatory mid-range entry point of 6 weeks under Regulation 19, Appendix 2. The second, a restriction
on the level of mitigation imposed by Regulation 19.11.12, stipulates that a panel can only reduce an entry
point by a maximum reduction of 50% (in this case, by 3 weeks) by way of mitigation.
17. The Player had accepted the charge and, it was said, satisfied most of the relevant mitigation criteria. The only
impediment to him receiving the full 50% reduction was a previous disciplinary offence arising from an incident
in October 2017 in which the Player had received a 2-week ban for a punch or strike committed in the second
round of the European Rugby Champions Cup.1 It was accepted on behalf of the Player that as a result of the
second so-called ‘straightjacket’, this prior infraction would ordinarily serve to reduce the mitigation available
in this case from the maximum reduction of 3 weeks to just 2 weeks, thus resulting in a final 4-week ban.
18. Notwithstanding this frank admission, the Panel were invited to view the sanction with reference to
proportionality and fairness. The Panel was urged not to “close its eyes” to the seriousness of the offence. To
follow the Regulations in a strictly formulaic manner without considering the overall fairness of the sanction
would be to “paint by numbers par excellence”. The Panel was urged to consider Regulation 19.1.6 which
states:-
1 It should be noted that this previous sanction was imposed prior to the mandatory mid-range entry point for contact to the head.
5 “…in the interests of achieving a just and fair result, procedural and technical considerations shall take second
place to the overriding objective of being just and fair to the parties thus being consistent with a duty to the
Game”.
19. It was submitted on behalf of the Player that, when considering sanction, the Panel must take a step back and
apply a sanction which is a fair and just result in the circumstances of the case. It was suggested by the
Player’s Representative that as this incident was minor, albeit falling with the mid-range entry point, a fair and
just result in this case was a sanction of 3 weeks, it being the minimum the Panel could impose in accordance
with the ‘straightjackets’.
20. When considering the effect of any sanction, the Panel was invited to ignore the possibility that the Player
might be selected to play for England in the upcoming Autumn Internationals. As at the time of the hearing,
the Player had not been selected for England and thus the Panel should only consider the Wasps fixture list.
That fixture list includes a number of European matches and then a number of matches in the Premiership
Rugby Cup. The Panel asked the Player’s Representative how it should consider the status of the Premiership
Rugby Cup fixtures (given that in previous years some clubs had tended to use the Anglo-Welsh Cup or the
LV Cup – predecessors to this new competition – as an opportunity to rest senior players and increase the
experience of younger players or those returning from injury). The Panel was told that Wasps consider the
Premiership Rugby Cup to be genuine first team fixtures. This was a new competition with a new format and
the Panel was told that the Player would have been selected for these fixtures had he been available.
RFU
21. The RFU submissions were less voluble. It was said that the entry point was a mid-range sanction.
Considerations as to what happened in the incident were relevant to the entry point, they are not relevant to
mitigation. The purpose to Regulation 19.11.11 is that mitigation is given for off-field factors. In essence, it was
said that it was not open to the Panel to adjust the level of mitigation to take account of the overall seriousness
of the offence. As a result of the Player’s previous sanction, he was simply not entitled to the full (50%)
reduction by way of mitigation.
22. The RFU accepted that when considering the effect of any sanction, the Panel ought to consider the position
as it stands. The Player had not been selected for England for the forthcoming series and thus only the Wasps
fixtures should be considered.
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
23. The Panel accepted the Player’s submissions that he had been held down by Ludlow and had been attempting
to free himself from contact when the punch or strike occurred. Consequently, whilst the Panel accepted that
there had been a degree of provocation underpinning this incident, it found that there was, nonetheless, an
intentional single blow to the side of Ludlow’s head in the dying minutes of the match, which caused no lasting
injury and had no impact whatsoever on the match.
DECISION
24. The Player had accepted, by his plea, that he had committed an act of foul play, contrary to Law 9.12, and
that that act passed the red-card threshold. The Panel upheld the citing.
SANCTION
25. In determining sanction, the Panel must first assess the seriousness of a player’s conduct with reference to
the criteria of Regulation 19.11.8. The Panel’s finding of fact as to the mechanism of, and circumstances
surrounding, the offence, coupled with the regulatory framework, provide for a mandatory mid-range entry
point of 6 weeks. This position was endorsed by the Player throughout the submissions of his Representative.
26. There were no off-field aggravating features under Regulation 19.11.10.
27. When considering the issue of mitigation, the Panel referred to Regulation 19.11.11 which states:
“Thereafter, a Disciplinary Panel shall identify all relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are
grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 19.11.12 and 19.11.13 the extent,
if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:
(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgment of culpability/guilt by the offending Player;
(b) the Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character;
(c) the youth and inexperience of the Player;
7 (d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;
(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for the Player’s conduct to the victim Player including the timing
of such remorse; and
(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Panel considers relevant and appropriate.”
28. The Panel accepted that it was appropriate to give the Player credit for his guilty plea. He had accepted the
charge and had thereby demonstrated an acknowledgment of culpability/guilt (per Regulation 19.11.11(a)).
Whilst the Player did not give evidence at Hearing 1, and thus there was no direct expression of remorse for
the incident, the Panel, when considering all the circumstances of the case, considered this to have been
implicit in his choice of plea. Nothing in the Player’s demeanour or in the submissions made by the Player’s
Representative at Hearing 1 caused the Panel to consider that he was anything other than genuinely
remorseful for his actions. The Player is not inexperienced, having played professional rugby for six years,
including for England. His conduct prior to and at the hearing was entirely appropriate.
29. The Panel reminded itself that, in accordance with Regulation 19.11.12, in assessing the reduction applicable
for mitigating factors, a disciplinary panel should start at 0% reduction and apply an amount, if any, to be
allowed up to a maximum 50% reduction. Due to the Player’s recent prior infraction, he was unable to avail
himself of the full 50% reduction. This had been acknowledged on behalf of the Player. For the
acknowledgment of culpability/guilt, the inferred remorse, and the conduct at the hearing, the Panel came to
the conclusion that the Player was entitled to a reduction of 2 weeks by way of mitigation.
30. The Panel gave careful consideration to the Player’s submissions that it should take a ‘step back’ from the
regulatory framework and consider the overall fairness of the sanction, and the submission that the sanction
for this minor incident should be reduced below 4 weeks to take account of the principles expounded in
Regulation 19.1.6. The Panel was not persuaded by this approach. In the Panel’s judgment, the Regulations
are framed prescriptively so as to provide consistency in approach between different disciplinary panels. Any
sanction for an offence of this nature must be arrived at by following the formulaic approach in the Regulations.
This requires an assessment of seriousness of the offence (per Regulation 19.11.8) before evaluating any off-
field aggravating factors (per Regulation 19.11.10) and then finally considering any off-field mitigating factors
(per Regulation 19.11.11).
8 31. The Panel does not accept that it has the discretion under the Regulations to adjust the sanction thereafter,
effectively overriding this process. The Panel’s view was that the Regulations provide a comprehensive
sentencing protocol which is intended to provide uniformity in relation to charges such as this. Evidence of the
intended prescriptive effect of this part of the Regulations can be evinced from comparing it to Regulation
19.11.13, which, by direct contrast, is explicit in empowering panels to depart from the sanctions framework.
This Regulation provides panels with ‘enhanced discretion’ to afford precedence to subjective considerations
of proportionality over and above the sanction framework. However, notably, this is only available for low-end
offending, and is only applicable where certain specific criteria are satisfied. Had this type of discretion been
inherent in Regulation 19 as a whole, as is suggested on behalf of the Player, there would be no need for
Regulation 19.11.13 to draw a distinction between low-end offending and more serious offences.
32. The Panel finds that to do as the Player invited would undermine the disciplinary process, and would lead to
inherent inconsistency, contradiction and unfairness, in that it would:
a. subvert the overriding objective as articulated in Regulation 19.1.6 by importing a subjective element
to the setting of any sanction that would be counter-intuitive to the prescriptive purpose underpinning
the Regulation;
b. undermine the basis upon which the sanctions associated with any entry point have been set if a
panel, having assessed the level of seriousness as meriting a particular entry-point (i.e. either low,
mid or top), went on to find that a particular offence did not merit the level of sanction (in weeks) that
resulted from prescriptively following Regulations 19.11.10 and 19.11.11 thereafter;
c. in a case involving contact to the head, undermine the reason(s) for which World Rugby has imposed
a mandatory mid-range entry point for such offences, if, notwithstanding there being contact to the
head in a particular offence, a panel subjectively found that the offence was ‘minor’ and did not merit
the final sanction which was arrived at;
d. skew the sanctioning process by affording supremacy to one criteria above all others by giving the
appraisal of seriousness of the offence double-billing in the decision-making process by using it to
arrive at a ‘just and fair’ result after it had been accounted for already in accordance with the
Regulations in the evaluation of entry-point;
9 e. impinge on the importance of off-field mitigating factors if the overall sanction could be reduced by
50% by reference to the overall seriousness of the offence, irrespective of whether a player merited
a full reduction on account of any off-field mitigation. This would necessarily lead to unfairness to
those players who are entitled to a 50% reduction by way of mitigating factors, as provided for by the
Regulations.
33. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Panel found that the appropriate sanction was, as at the time
of Hearing 1, a playing ban of 4 weeks.
34. The Panel accepted the evidence it had heard that the Player would have, but for any ban, been available for
the next four matches due to be played by Wasps, fixtures which were considered by the Club to be full 1st XV
matches. These were, at the time of Hearing 1:
i. v Leinster on 12 October 2018 (Heineken Champions Cup);
ii. v Bath Rugby on 20 October 2018 (Heineken Champions Cup);
iii. v Gloucester Rugby on 27 October 2018 (Premiership Rugby Cup); and,
iv. v Northampton Saints on 4 November 2018 (Premiership Rugby Cup).
35. These being meaningful fixtures for the purposes of the Regulations, the ban to be imposed was to run from
9 October 2018 to 5 November 2018, with the Player being free to play on 6 November 2018.
36. The Panel had carried out its deliberations in private. Having arrived at its reasoned decision, the Parties were
called back into the hearing and informed orally of that decision. The Player was also told that he would have
to pay the costs of the hearing, fixed at £500, and that he had the right to appeal any decision within 24 hours
of a written judgment being sent to him (per Regulation 19.12.9).
10 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AT HEARING 1
37. Within five minutes of the Parties leaving the hearing room, the Panel became aware that the Player had
seemingly tweeted the words “What a joke” on his personal Twitter account.
38. The Panel held a short discussion in private about the Tweet. The Panel considered it imperative that the issue
needed to be raised immediately with the Parties. No decision was made as to how to proceed. The Panel
made enquiries as to whether the Parties were still present at the venue. The Panel was told that the RFU
Representative was present, as was the Player and Mr Bassett, the Club’s Team Manager. The Player’s legal
representative was no longer present having left the venue to return to London.
39. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to call the RFU Representative and Mr Bassett back into the hearing
room so as to alert both to the emerging situation. In order to avoid exerting any pressure on the Player to give
an immediate response, the Player was not invited back into the hearing room at this stage. Having been
appraised of the situation, the Parties were given time to consider their respective positions and to take legal
advice.
40. After a short adjournment, the Panel was told that the Parties were ready to address the Panel. During that
adjournment, the Panel had been informed that the Player’s legal representative was not able to return to the
venue that evening. [There is plainly no criticism of Mr Maclean QC in this regard; by this time it was late into
the evening]. It also became apparent that Mr Harman (who had been present at the venue but had elected
not to appear before the Panel earlier in the evening) would be representing the Player. On resuming the
discussion about how to proceed, the Panel indicated that it would be appropriate to postpone any further
discussion of the Tweet given that the Player was no longer represented by Counsel. The Parties were told
that, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to reconvene not before 7 days, subject to availability.
41. Mr Harman indicated, however, that the Player wanted the matter to be dealt with immediately. The Panel was
told that the Player had taken advice from Counsel and that the advice was to seek to postpone the hearing.
Notwithstanding this advice, the Player and the Club wanted the matter to be concluded. It was said that the
Player “knows what he’s done and would to like to apologise now and would like to deal with it now.”
42. The RFU indicated that the Panel should consider the Tweet as part of the sanction for the punch/strike on
Lewis Ludlow. It was said that the Panel could consider the Tweet as an off-field aggravating feature or that
the Player’s conduct was such that any mitigation he had received should be reduced. In the alternative, it was
11 said that the RFU would charge the Player with an act contrary to Rule 5.12. The RFU accepted that the matter
could only be dealt with that evening if the Player agreed that the matter go ahead.
43. Mr Harman said on behalf of the Player that he (the Player) wanted to apologise and “cut through the legal
stuff…because otherwise it will drag out. It’s no good for the Game, no good for the RFU, no good for Wasps,
and certainly no good for Nathan.” The Player was asked directly whether he agreed that the Tweet was dealt
with that evening; he agreed that he did. The Player accepted that the Tweet had been posted by him and that
the Tweet was a response to the sanction he had received just moments before. The Panel was told that the
Tweet had been deleted before the hearing resumed. The Player accepted that he had been warned earlier in
the evening that he should not post anything about the hearing on social media. The Player apologised to the
Panel for the Tweet and said that it was not directed at the Panel but was borne out of frustration at the
sanction.
44. During further discussion, the RFU indicated that the only proper sanction was to increase the playing ban. Mr
Harman, however, suggested that the matter could be dealt with by way of a financial penalty rather than an
increased ban. The Panel was conscious that the Player may wish to have further time to consider his position
now that the RFU had clarified the way in which it felt the Tweet should be addressed. The Panel was acutely
aware that, notwithstanding the Player’s desire to have the matter resolved during the course of the evening,
he was not represented by Counsel. The Player was invited to take further advice. The Player and the Club
agreed that this was the appropriate course of action.
45. After that short adjournment, the Player and the Club requested a postponement to another evening so that
they had time to consider the position and to take further legal advice. The Panel agreed that that was the only
proper course open to it. The Panel considered that there was a grave risk of injustice to the Player if the
hearing continued that evening. The hearing was postponed for a period not less than 7 days. In the interim,
the Player remained suspended on account of his plea to the charge (and subsequent playing ban) or by
reason of Regulation 19.5.3 (a Player who has been cited by a Citing Commissioner is not entitled to play the
Game until his case has been finally resolved).
46. In the interim, the Parties were directed to file written submissions in advance of the reconvened hearing. The
RFU was directed to file written submissions to address the following issues:
12 i. Whether the Player’s actions in sending the Tweet could fall to be determined as part of the
original sanction for the punch/strike;
ii. If so, how it was said that the Panel should factor the Player’s actions into that sanction, if
at all;
iii. If not, or in the alternative, whether the RFU would charge the Player under Rule 5.12 (or
otherwise).
47. The Player was directed to file his written submissions in response. The Parties were told that they should be
prepared to deal with any additional charge at the reconvened hearing.
13 HEARING 2
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
48. There was no objection to the composition of the Panel.
49. The Player’s Representative accepted in writing in advance of the hearing that there was also no objection
taken to the same Panel hearing Charge 2 concurrently with the reconvened hearing relating to Charge 1.
50. At the outset of the hearing, the Panel canvassed the Parties as to the correct procedure it should adopt for
Hearing 2. One of the issues for the Panel to consider was whether or not Hearing 1 had concluded before
the Tweet was sent. The answer to this question might have a bearing on the extent to which the Panel was
able to reconsider the decision it had reached in relation to Charge 1, if it was appropriate to do so. The Panel
indicated that it could consider this issue first and then, if appropriate, go on to consider Charge 2 separately.
Alternatively, the Panel could hear submissions on both charges concurrently.
51. The RFU did not adopt a stance as to which course of action was appropriate.
52. The Player’s Representative accepted that it was open to the Panel to conclude that Hearing 1 had not
completed prior to the Tweet being posted and that the Player could arguably be answerable for the Tweet as
part of a continuing hearing in relation to the punch/strike. However, it was said that the Player did not accept
that if the Tweet was considered to be part of Charge 1 that the Panel would only have the power to impose
an immediate suspension from playing (or no additional sanction at all). [The Player’s submissions on this
issue will be outlined and considered below]. Therefore, it was said that it would be fair to continue with the
hearing under Charge 1 and the alternative Charge 2 concurrently. Such a procedure was said to ensure “that
this Panel has sufficient powers of sanction to impose any sanction they deem fit, and not simply one limited
to an immediate suspension from playing.”
53. In light of those submissions, the Panel considered it appropriate to hear submissions relating to Charge 1
and to consider Charge 2 concurrently.
54. At that stage, Charge 2 had only been presented by the RFU in a draft format. On an invitation by the Player’s
Representative to do so, the RFU formally charged the Player.
14
CHARGE AND PLEA
55. The Player was charged with an offence of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game,
contrary to Rule 5.12. It was said that on 10 October, the Player had tweeted on his Twitter account the words
“what a joke” at approximately 20.37.
56. The Player accepted Charge 2 in the alternative to the act of posting the Tweet being considered as part of
Charge 1.
RFU SUBMISSIONS
57. The RFU’s primary position was that the Panel was entitled to consider the Tweet under Charge 1.
58. First, it was said that the proceedings in respect of Charge 1 were still “live”, in that the Panel had reconvened
the hearing after the Tweet was discovered and had then postponed that hearing for a week.
59. Second, it was said that the Player had expressly consented to the Tweet being considered as part of
Charge 1 at Hearing 1 and had never withdrawn that consent.
60. Third, the RFU said that Panel was entitled to rely on the provisions of Regulation 19.1.16 to make any order
that it considers is in the interests of achieving a just and fair result. Regardless of the consent of the Parties,
it was open to the Panel to determined that the Tweet should be taken into account under Charge 1
notwithstanding that it had given an oral decision (but not, significantly, a written decision). In support of its
submission, the RFU relied on the Supreme Court decision of In Re L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8. In
short, it was said that the Supreme Court reconfirmed the “acknowledged jurisdiction of the judge to revisit his
own decision at any time up until his resulting order is perfected.”
61. The RFU stated that the Tweet should be considered as an off-field aggravating factor pursuant to Regulation
19.11.10(c). The Tweet was said to be a “relevant and appropriate” aggravating factor given that it was posted
before the written decision concluded the case, only 5 minutes after the Hearing ended, and the Player had
confirmed that it related to the proceedings.
15 62. The RFU considered the Player’s actions to be a serious matter. The Game’s core values include respect and
discipline. It is evident that the “rules, and respect for rules, are the foundation of the game. Therefore,
enforcement of the rules, through disciplinary processes, goes to the heart of the game and it is essential that
respect for the rules and disciplinary processes is upheld.” The Panel was reminded of the decision of another
RFU independent panel in in RFU v Diamond (19 November 2017) (as followed in RFU v Cipriani on
18 August 2018) which held that:
“Rugby’s Core Values are not empty words or slogans which can be signed up to and then ignored. They are
not to be treated as useful bolt-ons dreamt up by a marketing team. They are integral to the game and are
what make the game special.”
63. It was said by the RFU that the Player’s Tweet demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the rules, the
disciplinary process, the Panel, the RFU and the Game. Whilst the Tweet was removed quickly, it was picked
up by the media (as demonstrated by various excerpts of the media coverage). It was further aggravated by
the fact that the Player had admitted to the Panel that he had expressly been told not to comment on social
media about the hearing.
64. Further or alternatively, the Tweet was said to be relevant to the question of mitigation under Regulation
19.11.11 because it undermines the Player’s claim to have accepted culpability for his actions and that he had
remorse for the actions giving rising to Charge 1.
65. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to impose a playing suspension of 6 weeks under Charge 1, taking
into account the (now) aggravating off-field factors and reduced off-field mitigating factors.
66. In response to the Player’s written submissions, the RFU submitted that it was not open to the Panel to
consider any other form of sanction for the Tweet (in addition to the playing ban imposed for the punch/strike
itself) as part of Charge 1. Regulation 19.1.8 did not apply to the circumstances of this case.
67. The RFU stated that if it was considered in isolation under Charge 2, the Tweet was sufficiently serious to
justify a playing ban of between 2 to 4 weeks. It referred to the following decisions involving abusive comments,
particularly those evidencing a lack of respect for officials, as the most relevant comparative cases given that
the Tweet was a public criticism of the disciplinary process:
16 a. RFU v Diamond (2017): Mr Diamond, the Director of Rugby and coach at Sale Sharks admitted two
charges of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or game contrary to Rule 5.12 as a
result of derogatory comments about the match referee made to the press after a match. A 6-week
stadium ban was imposed with half suspended (on the condition that he committed no further similar
offence);
b. RFU v Neil McCarthy (2017): Mr McCarthy was charged with conduct prejudicial to the interests of
the Union and/or game contrary to Rule 5.12 as a result of abusing the match official after the game.
Mr McCarthy went into the match officials’ changing room, refused to leave when asked and shouted,
“you are a fucking disgrace”. Mr McCarthy accepted the charge and was given a 3-week ban;
c. RFU v Charlie Maddison (2017): during a match the player (who was on water carrying duty) shouted
three comments at the referee that were abusive in nature (including “are you going to do your fucking
job today or what”). The player apologised to the official after the game and admitted that the
comments constituted match official abuse. He received a 3-week ban;
d. RFU v Nathan Catt (2016): Mr Catt was charged with conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union
and/or game contrary to Rule 5.12 for saying to the referee, “Ref you are incompetent” and telling
him to “fuck off” when the referee called him back. Mr Catt apologised to the referee before leaving
the ground and sent a letter of apology. He admitted the charge. The Panel referred to the
Recommended Sanctions for “Verbal abuse of match officials” in Regulation 19, Appendix 2 (Exhibit
15), which provides for a 6-week ban if the offence falls at the Lower End. Given that Mr Catt was
asked to step away from his coaching role as a result of the incident, the Panel imposed a 3-week
ban from coaching suspended for 12 months;
e. RFU v Chance Ridler (2012): an 18 year-old player admitted breaching Rule 5.12 after posting tweets
on Twitter that suggested that he was using and distributing performance enhancing drugs as well
as encouraging others to use them. The Panel took into account that the player had “not an
insignificant number of followers”. The player received a suspended 9-month ban (subject to
conditions).
68. The Panel was invited to consider that these cases demonstrate panels have been consistent in imposing a
suspension of 3 weeks in cases involving abusive comments.
17 69. The RFU stated that it was appropriate to suspend the Player from playing under Charge 2. It was said that
the circumstances were akin to a charge contrary to Law 9.28 in that a player must not disrespect the authority
of a match official. Guidance was to be found in the Sanction Entry Points in Regulation 19, Appendix 2, where
a low-end entry point for such an offence would attract a ban of 2 weeks.
PLAYER’S EVIDENCE
70. The Player elected to give evidence before the Panel.
71. During the course of his evidence, the Player apologised to the Panel and to the RFU. He said he was only
human, made a mistake and it was “a silly tweet”. He said he was frustrated that he would miss matches for
Wasps in the European Rugby Champions Cup and for England in the Autumn international series.
72. The Player stated that when he got the call that he had been cited, he relooked at the video [of the incident]
and asked himself whether he had punched or struck Ludlow. He said he had grabbed Ludlow’s collar and
pushed him off because Ludlow was on his throat. The Player did that so as to try and get Ludlow off him and
did so in a way that he thought was reasonable. However, the Player said he took advice and was told to “go
guilty” so he could get the minimum ban and could still play for England. He reiterated that he “went guilty so
I could get the minimum weeks.” The Player said that he went with the advice but that he should have “gone
with [his] gut that [he] was not guilty in the first place.”
73. The Player said that he posted the Tweet because he was frustrated but that he was not being disrespectful
about the sanction he had received. He said that he was a Christian and that respect is a large part of his
religion and culture and that it had hurt to hear that he was being called disrespectful. The Player added that
he loved playing rugby and respected the laws and officials. He said that the past 7 days had been very hard
and had caused him to question why he played rugby. He had received a lot of criticism and had had to take
it on the chin.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAYER
74. The Player’s representative had stated in written submissions that it was accepted that the Panel could
potentially conclude that Hearing 1 was not completed and that the Tweet could arguably be answerable as
part of the continuing hearing.
18 75. The Player accepted that the conduct complained of (i.e. the Tweet) was “meritorious of a sanction in addition
to the 4 week suspension from playing already indicated on the 10th October 2018”. However, it was submitted
that “the fairness and justice of this case taken on its individual facts does not merit a further, immediate, ban
from playing. A sanction should be imposed that does not, immediately, extend the present 4 weeks sanction.”
76. It was said that ordinarily, the powers of sanction for a playing offence under Law 9.12 are limited to immediate
suspension from playing. However, the Player did not accept that when continuing to proceed under Law 9.12
(i.e. Charge 1) that the Panel would only have the power to impose an immediate suspension from playing.
The Panel was referred to Regulation 19.1.8 which provides:
“In the event that a particular incident takes place for which there is no provision in RFU Regulation 19…the
Disciplinary Panel…may take such action that it considers appropriate in the circumstances in accordance
with the general principles of fairness.”
77. It was said:
“The reference to ‘incident’ rather than ‘offence’ is important. The context of the unusual (and unprecedented)
circumstances of this tweet, its timing and context, are capable of being an ‘incident’ within the meaning of
Reg 19.1.8. In those circumstances, the Panel are free to impose such penalty as they consider “appropriate”
to meet the justice and fairness of the case. If justice is met by the imposition of a penalty other than a further
immediate suspension from playing, then such alternative sanction is available to the Panel. Any further
sanction for that incident would not be restricted to (only) Appendix 2 playing sanctions.
To proceed on 9.12 alone without resorting to the powers conferred by Reg 19.1.18 would be unfair to the
player. It would not, it is submitted, meet the fundamental principles of fairness in the proceedings as required
by Reg 19.1.6. Not least, if the tweet had followed hours rather than minutes later, the Player would have been
the subject of a ‘separate’ Rule 5.12. The “appropriate punishment” available to a Panel on such a charge are
wide ranging; see Reg 19.11.17.
Therefore, the ‘fair and just’ approach in those circumstances would be to have available all options of sanction
to consider. That would be achieved by hearing further proceedings under 9.12 and the alternative Rule 5.12
charge concurrently. Such procedure ensures that this Panel has sufficient powers of sanction to impose any
sanction they deem fit, and not simply one limited to an immediate suspension from playing.”
19 78. The Player chose not to make further oral submissions about Regulation 19.1.8. Instead, it was accepted that
both Charges 1 and 2 were ‘live’ and that the question of ‘sentence’ would be addressed instead. In essence,
it was said that the Panel had to consider the overall picture and consider what the “just figure” is for the Tweet.
It was said that the “just result” would be to give nothing.
79. In relation to Charge 1, it was said that a person is entitled to enter a plea before proceedings in order to get
credit. A player who chooses not to contest a hearing is entitled to credit. The question of showing contrition
is separate to the question of credit for a guilty plea. Just because the Player expressed frustration should not
detract from any credit he received because he had accepted Charge 1. The Panel was told that it was
understood that the Player had not spoken at all at Hearing 1 and thus any sense of remorse must have been
derived from his plea. The Panel was reminded that a person could be remorseful about what they did but still
feel justified in course that they took. The Panel was warned about setting a precedent whereby a player might
choose to accept guilt but not receive any credit for it.
80. The Player’s Representative candidly stated that the approach the Panel ought to adopt was to consider what
sanction is appropriate and impose a punishment that fits the fairness of the case. The Panel was, in essence,
invited to reach a decision as to the appropriate sanction and then find a mechanism within the Regulations
by which that sanction could be reached.
81. It was submitted on the Player’s behalf that the Panel must consider the gravamen of the offence. It was said
that the Tweet did not demonstrate a disrespect for the laws of the Game, or for the RFU or the Panel. There
was a difference between foolishness (as was the case here) and those who intended to be disrespectful by
aggressive abuse. This was a question of the Player being “more the fool than an evil man.” The Tweet was
taken down very quickly and the Player had apologised immediately. It was to his credit that the Player had
wanted to apologise to the Panel immediately and deal with it on the night. The Panel ought to consider the
RFU’s submission that this was a high-profile player who had a responsibility to act appropriately. However,
the Panel were invited either to reject this submission or to consider that the consequences of any sanction
were far greater for a player who was high-profile. The Panel was invited to consider that a player playing in
the lower leagues would not have been charged for such an offence but that had such a person been charged
and then been banned, it would have been far less consequential than here where the Player would potentially
miss international honours. The Panel was told that the financial consequences of missing international
matches were significant.
20 82. The Panel was reminded that it should be cautious about taking into account previous decisions. The sanction
for the Player had to be an individual sanction. It must reflect the words used, what might be inferred from
those words, and what the Player’s intention was. The Player’s Representative took the Panel through previous
decisions in some detail. In particular, the Panel were referred to RFU v Diamond, RFU v Ridler and the cases
involving Fuimaono-Sapolu (8 November 2011 and 9 January 2012). It was said that each of these cases was
far more serious that the circumstances here and demonstrated that the Player’s conduct did not merit an
immediate suspension from playing. The Panel was also reminded that in Cipriani, a criminal act had been
committed but did not warrant an immediate playing sanction.
83. The Panel was invited to take into consideration the sanction imposed by the Club, which had imposed a fine
of £2,000 (to be passed on the Club’s charity, Zoe’s Place, a baby hospice) and required the Player to spend
20 hours volunteering with that charity.
RFU RESPONSE
84. The RFU was invited to respond to the Player’s submissions.
85. The RFU submitted that in light of the Player’s evidence to the Panel, he was not entitled to any credit for his
guilty plea in response to Charge 1. When considering the question of mitigation, a panel was entitled to give
credit for “the presence and timing of an acknowledgment of culpability/guilt by the offending Player.” The
Player’s evidence demonstrated he did not accept any culpability for his conduct towards Ludlow. If the Panel
did not reconsider the decision it had indicated to the Player at Hearing 1, it would fall into error because the
decision would be based on a false premise.
21 FINDINGS & CONCLUSION
86. The Panel had been invited by the Player to adopt a method whereby it started with an assessment as to what
sanction should be imposed on the Player for having tweeted the Tweet and then found a mechanism or
means by which it could justify that end point. The Panel wholly rejected this approach.
87. The RFU Regulations stipulate that the overriding objective of Regulation 19 is:
“…to maintain and promote fair play, protect the health and welfare of Players (and others involved in the
Game), ensure that acts of Foul Play and Misconduct (on and off the field of play) are deal with expeditiously
and fairly by independent means within the Game and that the image and reputation of the Game is not
adversely affected. Furthermore, to achieve consistency in the way in which discipline is administered and
uniformity in the manner in which the assessment of seriousness of Foul Play is conducted and sanctions
imposed.”
88. The Panel found that to adopt an approach whereby the end (i.e. the sanction) is justified by the means (i.e.
the mechanism by which that sanction is arrived at) would be to subvert the overriding objective of the
Regulations.
89. Instead, the Panel found that the appropriate starting point was an assessment as to whether the hearing in
relation to Charge 1 had concluded by the time that the Tweet was posted to the Player’s personal Twitter
account by the Player. The Player had of course accepted tweeting the Tweet shortly after leaving the hearing
room on 10 October 2018.
90. The Panel found that the hearing had concluded by the time the Player had posted the Tweet. At Hearing 1,
the Panel had indicated to the Player what sanction would be imposed for Charge 1. He was reminded that he
would receive a written decision in accordance with Regulation 19.11.31 and that he had the right to appeal
against the decision within 24 hours of the time the written decision was sent to the parties. The Player
subsequently left the hearing room having understood that the hearing was over and tweeted the Tweet
thereafter. In the Panel’s view, the hearing had concluded.
91. The Panel notes that this view appears to be supported by the wording of Regulation 19.11.31 which states
“A Disciplinary Panel, shall within 24 hours of the conclusion of the case [emphasis added]…deliver written
reasons to the…Player…that was subject of the charge…”. The wording of this Regulation suggest that the
22 written reasons are simply intended to record the decision that has already been reached. Once the decision
had been given to the Parties and they had left the hearing, the case had concluded.
92. The Panel considered whether it had been appropriate for it to reconvene the hearing after it had become
aware of the Tweet, notwithstanding that the hearing had (on its own findings) concluded.
93. The Panel considered Regulation 19.1.6 which, in full, reads as follows:-
“Disciplinary hearings shall be conducted in a fair and just manner and in accordance with the fundamental
principles of natural justice, whilst recognising that neither a Disciplinary Panel nor an Appeal Panel is a court
of law and as such panellists or those appearing before panels may not be legally qualified. Therefore, in the
interests of achieving a just and fair result, procedural and technical considerations shall take second place to
do the overriding objective of being just and fair to the parties thus being consistent with a duty to the Game.”
94. The Panel determined that the emerging situation had merited an expeditious investigation. The circumstances
were unusual and, so far as the Panel are aware, unprecedented. The situation appeared to comprise an act
of conduct that had the potential not only to undermine the decision the Panel had issued mere moments
beforehand, but also more broadly the integrity of the Game. The Player, in his written submissions,
retrospectively accepted that the Panel had properly directed itself in investigating the relevant circumstances
immediately.
95. The Panel considered that there was no unfairness to the Player in recalling him into the hearing room to
investigate the circumstances. The Player was not called upon to account for his actions immediately. He had
been appraised of the situation by Mr Bassett who, in the absence of Counsel, served to protect the Player’s
interests. The Player had been given an appropriate period of time to take legal advice and to consider his
position. The Player had not been compelled or coerced into coming back before the Panel and was informed
at the outset that the matter could be adjourned for a few days in order for all Parties to ‘take stock’. The Player
declined this course, seemingly preferring the certainty that immediate sanction provided. It was only later,
once he became aware of the potential ramifications of his actions, did he request a postponement. It was
granted immediately. Further, the Panel noted that the Player did not take any issue at Hearing 2 (or otherwise)
that the Panel had been wrong to reconvene the hearing in relation to Charge 1 on the night or at all. In fact,
the Player had accepted that it was appropriate for the same Panel to reconvene to consider the issue
concurrently with Charge 2.
23 96. In light of its findings that the hearing had concluded at the time the Player posted the Tweet, the Panel
concluded that it was not appropriate to consider the act of tweeting as part of Charge 1. To do so would be
to conflate two separate incidents which, although related, were distinct. The Panel concluded that the act of
tweeting the words “what a joke” must necessarily be dealt with by Charge 2, the charge contrary to Rule 5.12.
97. That said, the Panel found that it could not ignore the evidence it had heard from the Player as to the rationale
which underpinned why he had posted the Tweet. At Hearing 1, the Panel had given credit to the Player for
the presence and timing of an acknowledgment of culpability/guilt in that he had accepted the charge of
punching/striking Mr Ludlow at the earliest opportunity. The Panel had also given credit to the Player for his
conduct prior to and at the hearing, which was entirely satisfactory and, although not directly expressed, the
Panel inferred some remorse by his guilty plea. The Player’s evidence during the course of Hearing 2 had
been given candidly. Despite the Player accepting Charge 1, the Panel found that he simply did not think he
had done anything wrong to Lewis Ludlow or committed an act of foul play, let alone one that passed the red-
card threshold. Such was the Player’s candour in his evidence at Hearing 2, he undermined the very basis
upon which the Panel had previously given credit by way of mitigation for the sanction under Charge 1.
98. The Panel considered carefully whether it was appropriate to revisit its decision under Charge 1,
notwithstanding that the case had concluded.
99. The only circumstances prescribed by the Regulations in which a decision can be referred back to a
disciplinary panel are when the list of a club’s competitive matches change following a panel’s determination
(pursuant to Regulation 19.11.24). Even then, a panel can only consider the dates of the period of suspension
to ensure that it is meaningful; it cannot review the duration or terms of the suspension. Plainly, these
circumstances did not apply here.
100. However, the overriding objectives are clear. A panel’s overriding duty is to ensure justice and fairness, not
just to a player, but to the parties (including the RFU) and the Game. Procedural and technical considerations
are secondary to the overriding objectives. To have ignored the Player’s evidence (given freely in response to
a charge he had accepted) would have been to continue with, or to countenance, a decision that the Panel
knew to be wrong when (part of) the sanction had been reached on a false premise. The Panel concluded that
the Player did not accept culpability for his actions in the punch/strike despite accepting the charge and had
demonstrated no remorse whatsoever. To have ignored this evidence would have been entirely contrary to
the overriding objectives. On the face of the Regulations alone, the Panel considered that it was entirely
appropriate to revisit the sanction for Charge 1.
24
101. The Panel considered that it was supported in this view by the Supreme Court decision (Re: L and B (Children)
[2013] UKSC 8) which had helpfully been drawn to its attention by the RFU’s representative. In short, there is
jurisdiction for a judge (and, the Panel infers, a disciplinary panel such as this one) to change one’s mind up
until the Order (or, in this case, the written decision) is drawn up and perfected. The question of whether such
a discretion should be exercised will depend on the circumstances. The Panel notes that the Player’s
Representative made no challenge to this general premise.
102. The Panel concluded, in light of the finding that the mitigation for Charge 1 had been assessed on a false
premise, and noting that the Panel had not sent the Player a written decision because the reconvened hearing
had been postponed, that it was entitled to - and in the circumstances, should – revisit the question of mitigation
for the offence of punch/strike. Had the Panel not done so, there was a grave risk that there would be
unfairness and injustice inherent in the outcome, not least to those countless players who genuinely accept
culpability for their conduct, as well as there being a grave risk that the image and reputation of the Game
would be adversely affected.
103. When revisiting the sanction relating to Charge 1, the Panel expressly states that the act of tweeting was not
considered as part of that sanction. The hearing had been concluded when the Player posted the Tweet. As
such, the Tweet could not be viewed as a relevant off-field aggravating factor for the purposes of Charge 1,
the hearing have concluded before the Tweet was posted. Even if an inappropriate tweet could amount to an
off-field aggravating factor pursuant to Regulation 19.11.10, to have aggravated the entry-point for Charge 1
in addition to imposing any sanction under Charge 2 would have been to punish the Player twice for the same
offence.
104. In relation to the question of mitigation, Regulation 19.11.12 is explicit; a disciplinary panel shall start at a 0%
reduction and apply an amount, if any, up to a maximum of 50% reduction. Pursuant to Regulation 19.11.11,
all relevant off-field mitigating factors are to be considered including, but not necessarily limited to, the matters
specifically set out at 19.11.11(a) to (e).
105. The Panel considered very carefully whether the Player was still entitled to some credit for his guilty plea for
Charge 1. While Ludlow had not been required to give evidence at a contested hearing (one of the
considerations a panel might take into account when determining if there should be credit for a guilty plea),
the Panel considered he was not, in the all the circumstances of this case, entitled to any credit for “the
presence and timing of any acknowledgment of culpability/guilty by the offending Player,” because the
25 evidence the Panel had received was clear and unambiguous: the Player did not accept any culpability/guilty
for his offending.
106. The Player did not express remorse directly at any stage. His evidence at Hearing 2 was that he was simply
reacting to Ludlow who was holding him down with his forearm on the Player’s throat. While the Panel had, at
Hearing 1, been prepared to infer remorse on account of the Player’s plea, at Hearing 2, the Player actively
demonstrated a lack of remorse by his evidence. The Panel has already stated that the Player’s record is such
that he cannot be said to be of good character. Likewise, the Player cannot be said to be inexperienced. While
the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing was satisfactory (and that is not altered by the subsequent
events), the Panel finds that the Player is not entitled to any mitigation in light of the evidence he gave at
Hearing 2.
107. The effect of our decision is that the Player receives a sanction of 6 weeks for the punch/strike to the head, it
being the mandatory entry point for an offence of this nature. There is no increase by way of aggravating
factors and there is no reduction by way of mitigating factors.
108. At the outset, the Panel was told that one of the options open to it was to deal with the posting of the Tweet
under Rule 5.12 as an alternative to considering the Tweet as part of the original sanction. Procedurally, we
were invited to consider the breach of Law 9.12 and the charge under Rule 5.12 jointly.
109. As stated above, the act of posting the Tweet is separate to, and distinct from, the sanction the Player has
received for Charge 1.
110. The Player accepted that in posting the Tweet, he committed an act of conduct which is prejudicial to the
interests of the Union and/or the Game, contrary to Rule 5.12.
111. Charges brought under Rule 5.12 dictate that the sentence is at large and that an “appropriate punishment”
may be imposed for such an offence. “Appropriate punishment” shall include, but shall not be limited to “a
reprimand, a financial penalty or suspension from playing, coaching and/or administration” (Regulation
19.11.7).
112. The Panel was invited by the Player to consider the seriousness of the Tweet in the round and to consider
imposing a financial penalty or a suspended playing ban.
26 113. The Panel accepts that this was a spontaneous and intemperate reaction to the original sanction relating to
Charge 1. It was however, to put it candidly, an act of gross foolishness in circumstances where the Player
had been warned not to make any public comment. While the Panel accepts that the warning not to make a
public comment had been given to the Player by the Club prior to the commencement of Hearing 1, the Player
accepted that he was aware of that warning when he sent the Tweet. In short, the Player only has himself to
blame for the predicament in which he finds himself.
114. This is a serious matter. The Player, by the Tweet, openly criticised the disciplinary process in a public arena
to his approximately 7,000 followers on Twitter. While the Player asserted that he did not intend to be
disrespectful, the effect of the Tweet was to undermine the credibility of the disciplinary process; this was an
obvious and foreseeable effect of the Tweet, irrespective of his intentions.
115. While the Player did not verbally abuse the Panel, or any one individual, nor did he do anything other than
send a three-worded tweet that was deleted shortly thereafter, his actions publicly undermined the core values
of the Game, the very values which the disciplinary process is designed to uphold. Players and Clubs are
entitled to disagree with the outcome of disciplinary hearings. However, there are proper processes to be
followed in such circumstances and Twitter, or social media more generally, is not the appropriate forum for
such frustration to be vented.
116. The Panel was reminded that the circumstances of this case are unusual and unprecedented. The Panel’s
attention was drawn to a number of other cases which were said to be comparable to this case. None of the
cases are directly analogous.
117. In the Panel’s judgment, the Player’s conduct had been sufficiently serious (for the reasons set out herein)
that the appropriate sanction should be an immediate playing ban. This is in line with previous decisions where
players and coaches have made critical comments in a public forum which could undermine confidence in the
Game or those, such as match officials, who uphold and enforce the laws of the Game.
118. The question for the Panel to assess was the level of that sanction. The Panel considered that a 2-week
suspension was appropriate for the level of offending. This takes into account the mitigating factors which are
present, including the acceptance of the charge, the sanction imposed by the Club – something that the Panel
commends – and the obvious remorse the Player has for his actions in posting the Tweet.
27 119. The Panel deemed it imperative to consider finally the question of proportionality pursuant to Regulation
19.11.14. It would not be appropriate to run these sanctions consecutively; the overall gravamen of offending
is not sufficiently serious to warrant a playing ban of 8 weeks. Instead, the sanction for the posting of the
Tweet, in breach of Rule 5.12, is to run concurrently with the sanction imposed for the punch/strike. A 6-week
playing ban overall is appropriate in all the circumstances of this case.
120. The fixtures which are to be included in this 6-week sanction are now as follows:
i. v Leinster on 12 October 2018 (Heineken Champions Cup);
ii. v Bath Rugby on 20 October 2018 (Heineken Champions Cup);
iii. v Gloucester Rugby on 27 October 2018 (Premiership Rugby Cup);
iv. v Northampton Saints on 4 November 2018 (Premiership Rugby Cup);
v. v Bristol Bears on 11 November 2018 (Premiership Rugby Cup); and,
vi. Northampton Saints on 17 November 2018 (Gallagher Premiership Rugby).
121. The Panel adds by way of a final note that if it had concluded that it was not appropriate to revisit the question
of mitigation in the original sanction for Charge 1 - and left the 4-week sanction as initially imposed at the
conclusion of Hearing 1 - the Panel would have run the 4-week sanction for Charge 1 and the 2-week sanction
for Charge 2 consecutively. In the Panel’s judgment, for the reasons stated earlier, the overall seriousness of
these offences is such that a 2-week suspension from playing is appropriate for the act of posting the Tweet
and that a 6-week sanction overall is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
RIGHT OF APPEAL
122. There is the right of appeal against this decision. In accordance with Regulation 19.12.9, any such appeal
must be lodged with the RFU within 24 hours of the date upon which this judgment is sent in respect of
Charge 1 and within 14 days of the date upon which this judgment is sent in respect of Charge 2.
COSTS
123. The Player is required to pay the costs of the hearing in the sum of £500.
Gareth Graham
Chairman
23 October 2018
28