Code
FFA Code of Conduct (In particular breach of Clause2.1)
Legislation
Section 66C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Case History
Tom, an A grade representative soccer player, had been charged under Section 66C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900(NSW) being the offence of having sexual intercourse with a person between the ages of 10 and 14. At the time he was 18. This happened in January 2008 and the matter was only listed for committal hearing in October 2009. A plea of “not guilty” had been entered and the player had a strong defence case. As is commonly known there is a “presumption of innocence” in such matters.
At a court mention in April 2009 a soccer referee saw Tom’s name on the court list and reported it to the Football Federation of Australia (FFA). Without consulting the player, the FFA immediately contacted the club, reported the matter and requested an explanation. The club had no knowledge of the matter although Tom had made a full disclosure to his former club. The FFA simultaneously hand delivered to Tom a letter requesting full particulars of the charge and the police documents. It was advised that Tom was in potential breach of clause 2.1 of the FFA Code of Conduct which provided that any player who committed or was charged with a criminal offence was deemed to have acted in a manner which had brought football into “disrepute” and consequently rendered the player subject to sanctions. The solicitor for Tom attended the FFA and handed over a full copy of the police brief and advised informally the basis of the defence. Disclosure of defence evidence was not open as it could have compromised the criminal proceedings. Tom subsequently received from the FFA a letter requiring him to show cause why he was not in breach of the Code and why sanctions should not be imposed.
Through his solicitor, Tom advised the FFA by way of formal response letter, a submission that the police case was weak and that defence case was strong. The common law “presumption of innocence was pressed” and a submission was made that sanctions were inappropriate under the circumstances.
The FFA subsequently formally advised Tom by way of written decision that he had been found to have committed a serious breach of clause 2.1 by being charged with a criminal offence. He was suspended from playing for his A-league club for four months and from playing for any national team until determination of the criminal proceedings. Tom was therefore ineligible to play for Australia at any junior or senior level or to play in any national competitions until after the completion of his court case. As Tom was likely to be selected for the World Cup competition and other international events this was a potentially serious blow to his immediate career prospects. The decision was followed quickly on the same day by a formal announcement by the FFA to the media by way of televised media conference, the nature of the criminal charge, the decision of the ruling body and the sanctions imposed. There was a short flurry of media reporting (mostly accurate).
What were Tom’s options?
To lodge an appeal against the decision within seven days via the “grievance procedures” embodied in the code. The application would be based on the presumption of innocence and that the “indefinite” period of suspension on national and international play was manifestly excessive given principles of general justice and fairness. This would, hopefully, at least reduce the period of the national/international sanctions.
To accept the sanctions and weather the storm. This would mean he would be accepting the indefinite suspension.
Challenge to the lawful validity of the Code through summons to the Supreme Court. This would be an expensive and time consuming process, with no guarantee that the Court would see fit to interfere in an internal process of a private disciplinary body which had acted strictly in accordance with its own rules and principles.
How can LAC Lawyers assist me?
By giving a carefully considered calm and rational appraisal of the overall situation given the enormous inter-related considerations and serious ramifications of a “false step”.
By intervening as a “spokesperson” to the relevant sporting authorities at a time when the player is no doubt in a highly emotional frame of mind, perhaps undergoing numerous mood swings and acting in an irrational manner.
By communicating directly with the lawyers for the sporting authorities to determine the attitude and likely direction those sporting authorities might take given certain eventualities.
By giving sensible legal and tactical advice to the players who may otherwise inadvertently act against their own interests.
By representing the players at a professional level in appeal or grievance proceedings.
Contact us now for Fast, Accurate and Timely legal advice
Phone LAC Lawyers on NSW 1300 799 888 or VIC 1300 734 638 or send us an email