RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
INDEPENDENT COMPETITION HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF: Chipping Norton RFC, Slough RFC, Andrew Dawson, Darran
Brown, Paul Bryant and Rob Hawkins.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: A breach of RFU Regulations 2.4 and 13.6.12(c) and
RFU Rule 5.12.
Appeal Venue:
Osborne Clarke LLP, One London Wall, London
Date of Hearing:
29 March 2016.
Date of Match:
6 February 2016.
Match Type:
Chipping Norton RFC v Slough RFC, Berks, Bucks and
Oxon Premier League - ("the Match").
Panel:
Mr Jeremy Summers (Chair), Mr John Loughton and
Ms Bonike Erinle ("the Panel")
Attendees:
RFU
Stuart Tennant
Chipping Norton RFC
Andrew Dawson, Head Coach
Vince Murphy, Committee Member
Slough RFC
Darran Brown, Head Coach
Matt Harris, Chairman
Trevor Sheddon, Disciplinary Officer and Vice Chairman
DECISION
1) The result of the match is declared void with neither club being awarded
any league points;
2) If the clubs wish to replay the fixture they are at liberty to do so but no
order is made in that regard;
3) Chipping Norton RFC is deducted twenty five (25) league points with
immediate effect;
4) Slough RFC is deducted twenty five (25) league points with immediate
effect;
1
5) Mr Andrew Dawson (Chipping Norton RFC) is suspended from coaching
at any level of the game for a period of 20 weeks as follows:
 10 March 2016 – 4 May 2016 inclusive (8 weeks)
 1 July 2016 – 22 September 2016 inclusive (12 weeks)
6) Mr Darran Brown (Slough RFC) is suspended from coaching at any level
of the game for a period of 20 weeks as follows:
 24 February 2016 – 3 May 2016 inclusive (10 weeks)
 1 July 2016 – 8 September 2016 inclusive (10 weeks)
7) Mr Paul Bryant (Slough RFC) is suspended from having any
involvement in the administration of the game at any level for a period
of 14 weeks as follows:
 24 February 2016 – 3 May 2016 inclusive (10 weeks)
 13 August 2016 – 9 September 2016 inclusive (4 weeks)
8) Mr Rob Hawkins (Referee) is suspended from refereeing at any level of
the game for a period of 20 weeks as follows:
 29 March 2016 – 3 May 2016 inclusive (5 weeks)
 13 August 2016 – 25 November 2016 inclusive (15 weeks)
9) Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC are each ordered to pay costs of
£125.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1. No objection was made as to the composition of the Panel.
2. Mr Hawkins (the Referee for the Match) did not attend and was not
represented. The Panel was advised that he had retired fully from the game
and did not wish to participate in the process.
BACKGROUND FACTS
3. The facts, which were not in dispute, are set out in the charges brought
against the parties as follows:
Charge 1
Chipping Norton RFC are charged as follows:
Statement of Offence
Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match
Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough
RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and
13.6.12(c) and RFU Rule 5.12.
Particulars of Offence
Chipping Norton RFC were responsible for correctly completing the
RFU Official Match Result Card in accordance with RFU Regulations.
Chipping Norton RFC provided false or misleading information on the
RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping
2
Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 as follows:
1.
Chipping Norton RFC 1st XV were scheduled to play
Slough RFC 1st XV in the Berks, Bucks and Oxon
Premier League (South West Division);
2.
Due to adverse weather conditions the match was
called off and therefore should have been rescheduled;
3.
An agreement was made between Darran Brown (Head
Coach, Slough RFC), Andy Dawson (Head Coach,
Chipping Norton RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match
referee) to complete the RFU Official Match Result
Card to falsely show that the match had taken place
and ended in a 24-24 draw, with both Clubs scoring 4
tries each;
4.
The RFU Official Match Result Card was signed by
Andy Dawson (acting as the Home Official for Chipping
Norton RFC), Paul Bryant (acting as the Away Official
for Slough RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee);
and
5.
The false RFU Official Match Result Card was sent to
the League Secretary and Chipping Norton RFC and
Slough RFC were awarded the points for a draw and
try bonus.
Charge 2
Slough RFC are charged as follows:
Statement of Offence
Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match
Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough
RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and
13.6.12(c) and RFU Rule 5.12.
Particulars of Offence
Slough RFC were responsible for correctly completing the RFU
Official Match Result Card in accordance with RFU Regulations.
Slough RFC provided false or misleading information on the RFU
Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton
RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 as follows:
1.
Chipping Norton RFC 1st XV were scheduled to play
Slough RFC 1st XV in the Berks, Bucks and Oxon
Premier League (South West Division);
2.
Due to adverse weather conditions the match was
called off and therefore should have been rescheduled;
3.
An agreement was made between Darran Brown (Head
3
Coach, Slough RFC), Andy Dawson (Head Coach,
Chipping Norton RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match
referee) to complete the RFU Official Match Result
Card to falsely show that the match had taken place
and ended in a 24-24 draw, with both Clubs scoring 4
tries each;
4.
The RFU Official Match Result Card was signed by
Andy Dawson (acting as the Home Official for Chipping
Norton RFC), Paul Bryant (acting as the Away Official
for Slough RFC) and Rob Hawkins (referee); and
5.
The false RFU Official Match Result Card was sent to
the League Secretary and Chipping Norton RFC and
Slough RFC were awarded the points for a draw and
try bonus.
Charge 3
Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) is charged as
follows:
Statement of Offence
Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match
Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough
RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and
13.6.12(c) and RFU Rule 5.12.
Particulars of Offence
•
On 6 February 2016, Andy Dawson (Head Coach,
Chipping Norton RFC) made an agreement with Darran Brown
(Head Coach, Slough RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match referee)
to provide false or misleading information on the RFU Official
Match Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton
RFC and Slough RFC. It was agreed that the RFU Official
Match Result Card should be completed to falsely show that
the match had taken place and ended in a 24-24 draw, with
both Clubs scoring 4 tries each.
•
Andy Dawson (acting as the Home Official for Chipping
Norton RFC) agreed to sign the RFU Official Match Result
Card thus verifying that the information contained on the RFU
Official Match Result Card was true.
•
Having signed the RFU Official Match Result Card and
knowing or believing that the match between Chipping Norton
RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 did not in fact take
place, Andy Dawson (Head Coach, Chipping Norton RFC)
failed to take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match
Result Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or
failed to report the matter to the League Secretary.
4
Charge 4
Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC) is charged as follows:
Statement of Offence
Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game
(contrary to RFU Rule 5.12) and failing to act with the utmost good
faith (contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4).
Particulars of Offence
•
On 6 February 2016, Darran Brown (Head Coach,
Slough RFC) made an agreement with Andy Dawson (Head
Coach, Chipping Norton RFC) and Rob Hawkins (match
referee) to provide false or misleading information on the RFU
Official Match Result Card for the match between Chipping
Norton RFC and Slough RFC. It was agreed that the RFU
Official Match Result Card should be completed to falsely
show that the match had taken place and ended in a 24-24
draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each.
•
Knowing or believing that the match between Chipping
Norton RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 did not in
fact take place, Darran Brown (Head Coach, Slough RFC)
failed to take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match
Result Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or
failed to report the matter to the League Secretary.
Charge 5
Paul Bryant (1st XV manager, Slough RFC) is charged as follows:
Statement of Offence
Provision of false or misleading information on the RFU Official Match
Result Card for the match between Chipping Norton RFC and Slough
RFC on 6 February 2016 contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4 and
13.6.12(c) and RFU Rule 5.12.
Particulars of Offence
•
Paul Bryant (acting as the Away Official for Slough
RFC) agreed to sign the RFU Official Match Result Card thus
verifying that the information contained on the RFU Official
Match Result Card was true.
•
Having signed the RFU Official Match Result Card and
knowing or believing that the match between Chipping Norton
RFC and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 did not in fact take
place, Paul Bryant (1st XV manager, Slough RFC) failed to
take any steps to prevent the false RFU Official Match Result
Card from being sent to the League Secretary and/or failed to
report the matter to the League Secretary.
5
Charge 6
Rob Hawkins (Match Referee) is charged as follows:
Statement of Offence
Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game
(contrary to RFU Rule 5.12) and failing to act with the utmost good
faith (contrary to RFU Regulation 2.4).
Particulars of Offence
•
On 6 February 2016, Rob Hawkins (match referee)
made an agreement with Andy Dawson (Head Coach,
Chipping Norton RFC) and Darran Brown (Head Coach,
Slough RFC) to provide false or misleading information on the
RFU Official Match Result Card for the match between
Chipping Norton RFC and Slough RFC. It was agreed that the
RFU Official Match Result Card should be completed to falsely
show that the match had taken place and ended in a 24-24
draw, with both Clubs scoring 4 tries each.
•
Knowing that the match between Chipping Norton RFC
and Slough RFC on 6 February 2016 had been postponed due
to adverse weather conditions and that a false RFU Official
Match Result Card had been created by the Clubs, Rob
Hawkins (match referee) agreed to sign the RFU Official Match
Result Card thus verifying that the information contained in the
document was true.
•
Thereafter, Rob Hawkins failed to take any steps to
prevent the false RFU Official Match Result Card from being
sent to the League Secretary and/or failed to report the matter
to the League Secretary.
4. With the exception of Mr Hawkins who provided no response to the charge
brought against him, all parties accepted the matters alleged as set out
above.
RELEVANT REGULATIONS
5. RFU Regulation 2.4 provides as follows:
Duty to Act with the Utmost Good Faith
All Clubs, Constituent Bodies, National Representative Bodies, all
Organising Committees and any player, official, member or employee
of a Club or Constituent Body or National Representative Body or an
Organising Committee shall at all times act towards the RFU and each
other with the utmost good faith.
6.
RFU Regulation 13.6.12 (c) reads as follows:
13.6.12 Completion of Match Result Card
6
(c) Accuracy of Information
Each Club must ensure that information provided on a Match Result
Card is accurate and legible. The provision of false or misleading
information on players or replacements shall be a serious breach of
this Regulation and may give rise to a severe penalty.
7. Appendix 1 to RFU Regulation 13 – Sanction Guidelines further provides:
Match Result Card - deliberately ECC - deduction of not less than 20
false or misleading information
championship
points
on
each
occasion (in addition to any points
deducted for a player being ineligible)
8.
RFU Rule 5.12 states:
The Union shall have power to discipline any
(a) Member;
(b) Rugby Body;
(c) non-voting member of the Union;
(d) any player, official, member or employee of a Member or a
Rugby Body; or
(e) any other person or body that submits to Union’s
jurisdiction to discipline them;
for any infringement of these Rules, the RFU Regulations, the
Laws of the Game or the World Rugby Regulations and/or for
any conduct which is prejudicial to the interests of the Union or
the Game or which amounts to cheating. The Union may
terminate or suspend membership of the Union or impose any
other appropriate punishment for any such offence. The
procedure for and the conduct of disciplinary hearings shall be
prescribed by the Council and shall be published in the
Handbook.
RFU POSITION
9. Mr Tennant opened the case on behalf of the RFU and summarised the facts
as set out on the charge sheet.
10. In respect to both clubs he noted that the Panel had wide discretion as to
sanction under RFU Rule 5.12 and RFU Regulation 19.11.7. In exercising
that discretion the Guidelines in Appendix 1 to RFU Regulation 13 however
stipulated a points deduction of not less than 20 league points for the
deliberate falsification of a Match Result Card.
11. In the RFU's view however that guideline sanction should be increased in this
instance to reflect a number of aggravating features that were present.
7
12. The minimum sanction would apply when the name one of player was
deliberately misstated on a Match Result Card by a club. This was not the
case here. There had been collusion by both clubs (and the Referee) and a
24-24 bonus point draw had been claimed leading to the award of three
league points to each club. In consequence the integrity of the league had
been compromised. This was a unique situation which, in the RFU's view,
merited an uplift from the minimum guideline sanction.
13. As to the individuals, the RFU viewed Messrs, Dawson, Brown and Hawkins
as being equally culpable as each had agreed at the time to enter false
details on the Match Result Card and for it to be submitted to the league
secretary as an honest and accurate document. They should each
accordingly be made the subject of the same sanction.
14. Mr Bryant had not been at the ground at the time and was not party to the
underlying agreement. Although he had subsequently signed the Match
Result Card his culpability was of a lesser scale than the other individuals
concerned and his sanction should reflect that fact.
15. Mr Tennant noted that the 2015/16 season was soon to end and reminded
the Panel of the need to impose a meaningful period of suspension.
MITIGATION
16. On behalf of Chipping Norton, Mr Murphy accepted that there was no
possible excuse for what had happened and reflected that the club was at risk
of relegation in consequence of the sanction the Panel was likely to impose.
17. As soon as the position had become known to the club chairman Mr Dawson
had been removed from his post although he accepted that this had not
occurred until 33 days after the Match.
18. The action was wholly out of character for Mr Dawson who had been a
magnificent club servant over a great many years. The club had been
astonished at what had happened, not least because the position was always
going to be discovered. There had been no intention to secure any benefit,
neither club were going to go up or down in consequence of the purported
result notified to the League Secretary. Indeed by claiming the match had
been played the club was depriving itself of the valuable income that would
have been derived from a home fixture. The club had considerable
community links, and the likely relegation would adversely affect those ties.
19. Mr Murphy questioned whether there could be greater flexibility in the system
so that a situation like this could not arise again whereby clubs felt they were
compelled to play fixtures even when they had been repeatedly cancelled at
great cost. He also asked whether the disciplinary system could be amended
to avoid the need for clubs to attend hearings where charges were admitted.
20. Chipping Norton however greatly regretted that the matter had occurred.
21. Mr Harris for Slough similarly did not seek to condone or excuse what had
happened. No club committee officials had been present at the time, and he
was confident that, had they been, the position would not have arisen.
8
22. The committee had convened on 24 February 2016 when both Mr Brown and
Mr Dawson had been removed from their posts pending the outcome of these
proceedings. Mr Brown has had no contact with the club since that time.
23. Slough is some distance from Chipping Norton and this was the second time
they had travelled for a cancelled fixture at considerable cost as coaches has
been booked and paid for. The decision, which was plainly wrong, had been
taken to try and save further expense, but not to benefit either club's league
position.
24. Mr Brown was highly regarded by the club and committed considerable time
to both the youth and community sections.
25. Mr Dawson gave evidence in his defence and at the outset indicated that he
was deeply sorry for his actions. He was not concerned as to the
consequences for his own position but was worried about what would happen
to his club.
26. Both teams had wanted to play and had been frustrated at the time and cost
of a second cancelled fixture. He had felt for Slough who had to bear the
brunt of the costs. He had tried to be clever in suggesting a 24-24 draw and
now realised the folly of his actions. It had however never been about the
points and there had been no question of either side going up or down
because of the draw claimed. He had resigned from the club and would not
be involved with the game for some time to come.
27. Mr Brown similarly spoke on his own behalf. He accepted he had been party
to a stupid decision, which he characterised as honourable but naive. He was
worried that the clubs, which were run by volunteers, would be forced out of
being by the sanction that would now be imposed. He took full responsibility
for the decision and had obtained no guidance from elsewhere. He was
deeply sorry for his actions which he accepted had been inappropriate. He
had already served over a month of suspension having been removed from
his coaching post by the club's internal process held on 24 February 2016.
DECISION
28. This was a difficult matter which clearly had the potential of grave
consequences for the clubs and individuals involved all of whom had
previously given great service to the game of rugby.
29. The Panel therefore gave very great care to the evidence and submissions in
determining the appropriate sanctions to be imposed.
30. Whilst accepting the genuine regret and remorse of all parties, the
seriousness of the matter was plain and required condign sanction to reflect
that fact.
31. The integrity of the league system, and of the game at large, relies on the
honesty and faithfulness of all participants and that is reflected by
Regulations requiring that a minimum deduction of 20 league points in the
event that deliberately false or misleading information is included on a Match
9
Result Card.
32. The Panel carefully considered the RFU's submission that the sanction in this
instance ought to more than the minimum guideline sanction to reflect the
aggravating features present.
33. The Panel was in agreement with that submission. There had been deliberate
collusion involving the participation of a well-regarded referee who had
officiated in the game for some 30 years. Ultimately, competitive advantage
had been gained. Both teams had claimed a 4 try bonus point when no tries
had been scored or even a ball passed.
34. Having regard to those aggravating features and taking into account the
available mitigation, which was not insubstantial, and included an early
acceptance of wrong doing and no previous similar offending, the Panel
determined that the appropriate sanction to be imposed on each club was an
immediate deduction of 25 league points.
35. The Panel similarly acceded to the RFU's submission that the culpability of
Messrs Dawson, Brown and Hawkins should be viewed as being of the same
scale and above that of Mr Bryant.
36. Having regard to all the relevant features of the case, including the mitigation
available, the Panel concluded that the sanction to be imposed on Messrs
Dawson, Brown and Hawkins would be a suspension of 20 weeks.
37. In contrast, Mr Bryant was suspended for 14 weeks to reflect his lesser
culpability.
38. The Panel was required to ensure that the above sanctions were imposed in
such a way as to represent a meaningful period of suspension.
39. In undertaking that exercise the Panel had regard to the close season, the
differing roles (and thus the differing season periods) for the various
individuals and the date on which internal suspensions had been imposed.
40. For those reasons the precise periods of suspension ordered, as set out
above at points 5) to 8) inclusive on page 2 of this decision, differ as regards
each individual. That is intentional and reflects the nature of the sanctioning
exercise that the Panel was required to undertake.
41. The Panel imposed costs orders against both clubs but in the exercise of its
discretion was not minded to do so against the individual respondents.
APPEAL
42. The parties were advised of their right of appeal as provided for by RFU
Regulation 19.
Jeremy Summers
Chairman
1 April 2016
10