RFU DISCIPLINARY HEARING Venue: Holiday Inn Brighouse-Leeds Date: 30 August 2018 JUDGMENT Panel: Samantha Hillas; Antony Davies; John Greenwood Club/ (1) Rotherham Titans Agent: (2) Richard Emms In attendance at the hearing: For the RFU: Steven Flynn (Counsel) Stuart Tennant David Barnes For the Club: Martin Jenkinson - Director of Rugby, Rotherham Titans For the Agent: Laura Gould (Counsel) Observing: Matthew Lewis – Director, TSMC Martyn Wood – Director of Rugby, Hull Ionians Secretary: Brian Stott _____________________________________________________________________ The Charges The Club was charged as follows: STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Directly and/or indirectly approaching and/or accepting an approach by or on behalf of William Dennis (RFU ID: 01232397) who was under contract with Hull Ionians RFC to induce or attempt to induce him to leave Hull Ionians RFC and join Rotherham Titans without the written consent of Hull Ionians RFC, Yorkshire RFU or the RFU and not in the final six months of his contract with Hull Ionians, contrary to RFU Regulation 7.1 and RFU Rule 5.12. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Rotherham Titans have breached RFU Regulation 7.1 as follows: 1. William Dennis was under contract with Hull Ionians RFC for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 May 2018; 2. William Dennis signed a contract with Hull Ionians RFC on 26 February 2018 which commenced on 1 July 2018 and has a termination date of 31 May 2019; 3. On or around 22 June 2018, Rotherham Titans accepted an approach by or on behalf of William Dennis to induce or attempt to induce him to leave Hull Ionians RFC and join Rotherham Titans; 4. On 26 June 2018, William Dennis entered into a contract with Rotherham Titans for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 April 2019; 5. Hull Ionians RFC did not give Rotherham Titans consent to accept an approach by William Dennis; and 6. William Dennis was not in the final six months of his contract with Hull Ionians RFC. The Club denied the charge. The Agent was charged as follows:- STATEMENT OF OFFENCE As a Registered Agent, taking steps intended to induce a person to act in breach of his written agreement with a club contrary to RFU Regulation 8.8.1 and RFU Rule 5.12. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Registered Agent Richard Emms has breached RFU Regulation 8.8.1 as follows: 1. William Dennis signed a contract (i.e. a written agreement) with Hull Ionians RFC on 26 February 2018; 2. This written agreement stipulated (i) an agreed period for the contract of 1 July 2018 to 31 May 2019 (clause 1), (ii) that “the registration of the Player may be transferred by mutual consent” (clause 3) and (iii) that “the Player agrees that he shall not train with or play Rugby Union for any team” other than Hull Ionians RFC “without the written consent of the Director of Rugby” (clause 6). 3. On 18 June 2018, Richard Emms and William Dennis signed an agency and management agreement; 4. On or around 22 June 2018, Richard Emms, acting on behalf of William Dennis, approached Rotherham Titans for the purposes of inducing William Dennis to act in breach of his written agreement with Hull Ionians RFC and join Rotherham Titans; 5. On 26 June 2018, William Dennis entered into a contract with Rotherham Titans for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 April 2019; and 6. William Dennis was training with Rotherham Titans until 3 July 2018. The Agent admitted the charge. Preliminary matters 1. The Panel and all parties were provided with a bundle comprising 248 pages including the charges, various email exchanges, statements, judgments in previous, similar cases and the relevant regulations. 2. A number of statements and emails in support had been filed by both the Club and the Player. The authors of those emails and statements were not in attendance to give evidence to the Panel and their evidence was not relied upon by any party, with one exception. 3. Both the Club and the Agent had provided statements from the player, William Dennis (WD) and his father, Ian Dennis (ID). WD and ID did not attend the hearing, but it was not clear whether any party had requested that they should. All parties agreed that the hearing should proceed in the absence of WD and ID. All parties made reference to matters set out in the statements of WD and ID. 4. The Panel were provided with written submissions from Mr Flynn on behalf of the RFU [119-138] and Miss Gould on behalf of the Agent (at the hearing). 5. Prior to the hearing, it was understood that the Agent denied the charge, but it was admitted when put to him at the hearing. He is not criticised for this: it is understood he was only able to meet with his counsel shortly prior to the hearing. 6. Martin Jenkinson (MJ) on behalf of the Club denied the charge both prior to and at the hearing. However, he qualified this by saying that (a) he was not a lawyer, (b) his response would depend on the definition of a ‘contract’, and (c) if the Panel told him the charge was made out, then he would admit it. 7. Although the Panel accepts the RFU’s primary submission that Regulation 7.1 creates disciplinary offence of strict liability, MJ had filed a number of documents in support of Rotherham’s case, was anxious to speak and, in any event, much of what he had to say would be relevant to the issue of sanctions (the Agent already having admitted the charge). In the circumstances, the Panel proceeded to hear the matter on the basis the charge was denied. 8. The Panel agreed to delay the start of the hearing to 7.45pm to allow discussions between the parties and for them to refine the issues. The hearing concluded at 11.30pm. 9. The Panel heard evidence from only MJ and the Agent. The facts 10. WD is a 20-year old tight head prop currently registered with Hull Ionians (HI) [21]. 11. WD was under contract with HI for the 2017/2018 season [41] and on 26 February 2018, he signed a further contract with HI for the 2018/2019 season [38]. 12. At some point thereafter (it is not clear when), Martyn Wood (MW), HI’s DOR, told WD that he may be released from his contract in certain circumstances. MW and WD dispute what those circumstances were. MW says he told WD that he would release him to a full time professional club on the basis his (MW’s) prior consent was obtained. WD’s position as set out in the written materials is that it was a ‘verbal release’ which enabled him to be released at any time without further discussion, to play for any higher level club. 13. Rotherham were relegated from the Championship at the end of the 2017/2018 season, lost a number of players and were looking to recruit. On 11 June 2018 MJ sent an email to all registered agents confirming they were still looking for two props [105]. 14. Around this time the Agent had received a call from WD, following a recommendation from an England County coach. WD was looking to play at a higher level. WD and the Agent were aware that WD was under contract to HI, but WD advised him his contract was subject to a ‘verbal release clause’ that enabled him to be released to play for a higher level club. This was confirmed to the Agent by WD’s father. The Agent did not seek any further clarification of the terms of the ‘verbal release clause’. 15. A telephone conversation took place some time after 11 June 2018 but before 20 June 2018, when the Agent advised MJ of a possible prop. MJ says that the Agent did not want to disclose the player’s name until he had him signed up to an agency agreement. The Agent says that he gave MJ the player’s details and told him he was under contract to HI, subject to a verbal release clause. 16. On 18 June 2018 WD signed an agency agreement with TSMC [66]. 17. On 20 June 2018 MJ emailed the Agent [106] asking if there was “Any news on the Prop you mentioned?”. On 22 June 2018 the Agent responded by email [107] saying “Martin, As promised, we have a very exciting Tight Head for you. He’s not only EQP but a Yorkshireman also.” The email then set out WD’s details and playing career and attached WD’s CV with a link to one of his England Counties’ games. 18. MJ says he spoke to the Agent following receipt of this email as the Club had a number of former HI players, he had had run ins in the past with HI’s DOR, Martyn Wood (MW) and he wanted to know the contractual position. MJ says he was told by the Agent that he was out of contract. The Agent maintains that he had already told MJ on an earlier occasion that WD was under contract but subject to the verbal release clause (see paragraph 15 above). 19. On 25 June 2018 the Club sent a contract to the Agent by way of offer. The Agent forwarded it to WD and asked him to read it thoroughly. 20. On 26 June 2018 WD spoke to MW. MW told WD that he would not be released from his HI contract. WD advised the Agent of this. The Agent subsequently spoke to MW himself and was told the same thing.