• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Interesting law case .. read the full twitter thread and the full judgement

"
  1. In the course of his cross examination, it was suggested to Mr Cuthbertson that he should not have accepted instructions to act as an expert because of his previous and ongoing connection with the RFU. It was said that his approach was partisan, involving a selective critique of the evidence which amounted to arguing the Defendant's case."
    What I find interesting there (and I do see that this suggestion was dropped/rejected) is that what if Mr. Cuthbertson WAS the de facto most senior expert and widely accep[ted as such. If this had been upheld it would mean that the best placed expert wouldnt be permitted to provide evidence, which would seem somewhat of a paradox.
 
I am not a ref. I do not sit on panels. I have not seen the video
I'm struggling to balance clauses 18, 26, 32and 33. In the light of their contents I can see why the rugby citation ended up as "no foul play" and the court ended up with "foul play" [ in effect ]. I'm just struggling to see that if the facts in clause 18+32+33 are true that there could be no disciplinary committee decision along the same lines.
 
Last edited:
An interesting judgement which I hope is widely publicised around club. It might, just might, make players think more about their potential liability for the cheap shots that frequently occur on the pitch.
 
It may me wonder about rugby's Laws
How can an action be culpable under law, but not punishable in the Laws of rugby
 
crossref said:
It may me wonder about rugby's Laws
How can an action be culpable under law, but not punishable in the Laws of rugby
Click to expand...
The short version is because of volenti non fit injuria which doesn't cover all eventualities, but a lot of them.
 
crossref said:
It may me wonder about rugby's Laws
How can an action be culpable under law, but not punishable in the Laws of rugby
Click to expand...
Could we also have a similar disconnect where we, as refs, need “clear and obvious” but civil cases only need a balance of probability?
 
Volun-selected said:
Could we also have a similar disconnect where we, as refs, need “clear and obvious” but civil cases only need a balance of probability?
Click to expand...
The issue isn't the refs decsion, it's the citing committee.

Under Reg 17, they are "balance of probability" too, but seem to have applied the criminal "beyond a reasonable". If they had applied the civil standard, the discrepancy here might not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top