guilty, page-7

That was direct from the press. You come out of your childish ignorant self and read it for yourself.




Insufficient evidence against Harbhajan - Hansen
January 30, 2008




Lack of sufficient evidence, a more rigorous judicial process and an inexplicable botch-up on the part of the ICC allowed Harbhajan Singh to get away with a 50% fine, it emerged after Justice John Hansen read out the reasons for his verdict a day after the hearing in Adelaide.
Andrew Symonds' inability to conclusively say whether Harbhajan Singh had used the word monkey or a Hindi abuse, and his admission that the language did not fall under the requirements of a level 3.3 offence played a crucial part.
But Hansen also said Harbhajan had "reaped the benefit" of database and human errors, with his offence in November 2001 - when he was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended sentence of one Test - not being made available to the assisting counsel at the time of sentencing. He said he "would have required more extensive submissions as to the offence in mitigation, which could have led to a different penalty".
In a 22-page document that detailed the reasons for his decision, it emerged that Sachin Tendulkar's word could have had a big role to play too. Unlike Mike Procter, who thought Tendulkar was not in a position to hear what was uttered, Hansen said "extensive video footage" establishes that Tendulkar "was within earshot and could have heard the words".
Tendulkar said he heard Harbhajan "use a term in his native tongue "teri maa ki" which appears to be pronounced with an "n". He said this is a term that sounds like "monkey" and could be misrepresented for it."
Symonds couldn't recall if he had heard Harbhajan use that particular Hindi abuse and accepted that it was a possibility. He also didn't find favour with the judge with his explanation for abusing Harbhajan after he had patted Brett Lee on the back side. Symonds said he had objected because "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player" but Hansen dismissed that explanation ("If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers").
Michael Clarke's account was critical, considering that it did not coincide favourably with the rest. "It is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken, only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing," Hansen said.
"This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange. Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything. Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising. This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English."
Hansen's report included the statement of agreed facts that contained the signatures of the seven players concerned. He also pointed out to the "agreement" between Symonds and Harbhajan in Mumbai last year, adding that it was Symonds who had breached it by "provocative abuse".
Towards the end of his statement, though, Hansen admitted that the ICC had advised his assistant counsel, John Jordan, of only one of Harbhajan's previous infractions, a Level 2.8 offence back in April 2003 when he made an abusive comment to an umpire. However, it was only after his verdict that Hansen was made aware of the three other cases involving Harbhajan.
The first, a Level 1 offence in 1998, was overlooked because offences under the old Code of Conduct were not included in the ICC database. The second, a Level 1 offence in November 2005, was not made available because of a "human error". Hansen said the extent of his punishment wouldn't have changed even if he knew about the first two but added that knowledge of the third, a Level 2 offence in November 2001, "could have led to a different penalty".
Hansen denied any deal had been struck between legal counsel for the Australian and Indian players to downgrade the charge. He was also critical of all parties involved in the confrontation in Sydney, saying "their actions do not reflect well on them or the game".
© Cricinfo

Legal bungle saved Harbhajan

• Font Size: Decrease Increase
• Print Page: Print
Peter Lalor | January 31, 2008
JUSTICE John Hansen bungled the sentencing of Harbhajan Singh after being accidentally misled in the hearing and admitted last night he would have imposed a larger penalty if he could have.

Harbhajan Singh escaped a Test ban after a legal oversight at his appeal hearing. Picture: Brett Hartwig
The bowler was given a minimum fine for abusing Andrew Symonds, but cleared of the more serious offence of racial abuse.
Harbhajan could have faced a one Test or two one-day international ban but instead was slapped on the wrist with a $3000 penalty.
The New Zealand International Cricket Council Appeals Commissioner said he had been told Harbhajan had a clean record by counsel assisting, but on further inquiry found the Indian cricketer was a repeat offender.
"Overnight I have given earnest consideration to the Code of Conduct to see if it empowers me to reopen the sentencing process," Hansen said in his decision released yesterday. "Regrettably, I have concluded that I cannot do so and the penalty imposed by me must stand. At the end of the day Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors."
Harbhajan's lawyer Vasha Manohar boasted after the hearing that his client got off because of his clean record and the judge's wish to ease tensions between India and Australia.
"There are several reasons for handing out a minimum punishment to Harbhajan. Firstly, this was his first major breach in 10 years," Manohar said. "Secondly, with the World Cup coming up in the sub-continent, tension between both teams and both countries had to be diffused and one way of diffusing it was to give Harbhajan a lesser punishment."
Harbhajan now has five code of conduct breaches to his name.
Despite Manohar's claims, Hansen dismissed suggestions he faced undue pressure from the Board of Control for Cricket in India, even though the Indian players in Adelaide refused to continue with the tour and almost all members of the BCCI publicly stated they would be brought home if Harbhajan was banned.
"Many reports have suggested that if the appeal is unsuccessful the balance of the tour would be called off or would at least be in jeopardy," Hansen said.
"Mr Manohar has assured me that that is not the position of the BCCI and it is no more than media speculation and exaggeration."
Australian Test players continue to seethe quietly about the pressure placed on them by Cricket Australia to cut a deal with Harbhajan.
They were told Cricket Australia would be sued for $60m if the tour was cancelled, which would set back CA finances 10 years.
Most said they were frustrated but wanted to move on, while others expressed anger that Harbhajan continues to get away with on-field indiscretions while some members of the Australian media continue to condemn the Australian players' behaviour.
In the end, Hansen concluded the whole heated issue was a case of cultural misunderstanding and Harbhajan used an offensive term that sounded like "monkey".
His findings say that Symonds brought the insults on himself and imply the Australians who gave evidence did not give a full account of the incident.
"As I say, the standard to be applied by me is a high one. I have to be sure that the words were said," Hansen said.
"That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am not sure they were.
"I am left with an honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said, given the possibility of misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh.
"It is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were said in the course of the exchange."
Hansen praised the evidence of Matthew Hayden and Sachin Tendulkar, but is sceptical about some of the other witnesses.
The judge said match referee Mike Procter's findings that Tendulkar did not hear the exchange was a mistake.
"Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses. But their evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds," he said.
"Mr Tendulkar said there was offensive words in Mr Singh's native tongue and he also heard abusive language in English between the two. Mr Hayden says he heard the words "big monkey" but could not recall for the court any other words that were said by either party."
Hansen decided to accept the Indian's account of the incident over the Australians.
"It is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken, only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing," he said.
"This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange. Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything. Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising."
Perhaps the most surprising part of the judge's findings are his criticisms of Symonds for provoking the incident and suggestions that a reasonable person would expect to be racially abused if they swore at somebody.
Hansen even accuses Symonds of breaching a handshake deal made when Harbhajan allegedly first called him a monkey in India.
"Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition of the game, acknowledged the quality of Mr (Brett) Lee's bowling," Hansen said. "That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh.
"Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8.
"But in my view even if he had used the words alleged an 'ordinary person' standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.(racial vilification)."