RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION 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’.