India in England 2014 August 3, 2014

BCCI counsel solved verdict dilemma - judicial commissioner


In what was necessarily a he-said-she-said case, with no concrete evidence and witnesses "hopelessly biased" in favour of their own team, Gordon Lewis, the judicial commissioner, has said that "ironically" it was the BCCI counsel that helped him make his mind up that James Anderson could not be considered guilty.

In his written verdict, which ESPNcricinfo has access to, Lewis has said that he was not "comfortably satisfied" given the lack of audio or video evidence, or a detailed neutral witness, that Anderson was guilty. However, when he weighed up the two vastly different accounts presented by both the sides, it was ironically Adam Lewis, the lawyer representing India and Ravindra Jadeja, who might have unwittingly saved him the dilemma when he made his final submission.

"During that submission Mr [Adam] Lewis posited his 'two push theory' for which there was not an iota of supporting evidence," the commissioner said in his verdict. "And that submission I suspect came from Mr Lewis' frustration in trying to make sense out of two totally conflicting versions of the evidence. It was an effort to find an explanation for the inexplicable, based on the conflicting evidence the tribunal had heard."

It wouldn't have helped Jadeja's case that he "embellished" evidence during his cross-examination. "… The extent and force of that contact is unknown, despite Jadeja's response in cross-examination, that the push was hard and caused him to break stride. That evidence seemed to me to be a recent embellishment, as Jadeja had not previously said this nor had any other witness."

The account of the only "closest to unbiased" witness, Trent Bridge steward David Doyle, wasn't exhaustive. Doyle said in his written statement that he saw Jadeja turn around. "I couldn't see who exactly he was heading towards," his statement said. "As Jadeja was turning, Dhoni stopped him and turned him back and they both then proceeded up the stairs to the changing rooms." When contacted on telephone during the hearing, Doyle said that Jadeja "took one or two steps back towards the England players". He also said that MS Dhoni stopped him and turned him back.

This case was brought to ICC's notice after an incident between Anderson and Jadeja as the players were walking off for lunch on the second day of the Trent Bridge Test last month. India alleged that Anderson had pushed Jadeja in the corridor between the playing field and the dressing rooms. England didn't deny that Anderson had pushed Jadeja, but said he did so in self-defence when Jadeja had turned aggressively towards him. There was no ICC or ACSU camera in that corridor, and the webcam that was there did not work on the day.

The commissioner Lewis didn't consider Anderson guilty because he didn't believe he had enough evidence to go by in a case that carries severe sanctions.

"Essentially, the Indian position is that without provocation, Anderson pushed Jadeja in the back causing him to turn around," Lewis' verdict said. "Jadeja said Anderson continued to abuse him in the corridor and had ultimately pushed him in the back and told him to 'f***ing go back to the dressing room'. Jadeja denies any aggression on his part and particularly he denies that he ever turned around or did anything that could be considered aggressive on his part. To the extent that any of the alleged conduct was viewed by other Indian players and team staff members, they support Jadeja's evidence.

"According to Anderson's version of the incident it was Jadeja who was the aggressor and without provocation. In the corridor, as they approached the steps that led upstairs, Anderson said that Jadeja suddenly turned around and aggressively came towards him and 'got right up in my face'. He said he instinctively put up his hands as Jadeja still had a cricket bat in his hand. He said that he put up his hands in a defensive manner because of the way in which Jadeja came at him. Anderson claims to have been completely taken aback by Jadeja's 'aggressive action'. According to Anderson, Jadeja's action in walking back to stop in front of him caused Jadeja to block Anderson's way and the way of his team mates who were coming behind him. Anderson said he then used his right arm to push Jadeja's shoulder to get him to turn around and go back towards the Indian dressing room. He agrees he said words along the lines, 'F*** off and get in your dressing room'.

"Importantly Anderson denies pushing Jadeja in the back or in any way provoking him after entering the corridor. Obviously one version of the facts must be untrue, but the existing CCTV image is unhelpful and the witnesses hopelessly biased in favour of one party or the other."

Lewis has also explained his thought process in arriving at the decision, and how it came down to guessing what might have happened. "I considered then the different standards of proof pertaining to charges at different levels under the Code, and with a level 3 charge the penalty could be four to eight suspension points or 2 to 4 Test matches. In monetary terms the loss of between $A40,000 and $A80,000 approx. In my view with potential penalties that severe, for me to be "comfortably satisfied" pursuant to Article 6.1, something close to beyond reasonable doubt was required.

"I then turned my mind to downgrading the charge to level 2 pursuant to Article 7.6.5. I considered whether I could be comfortably satisfied that an offence at that level had been committed when the sanction for a first offence potentially equated to between $A10,000 and $A30,000 (the fees payable as half of Anderson's fee in the second test and his payment for a further full test match). When a Tribunal is dealing with someone's livelihood, sanctions of that magnitude in my view, certainly require a standard of proof that is more than on the balance of probabilities and again I was not satisfied that an onus requiring a standard of proof at that higher level, had been discharged.

"As I reflected on the evidence and the final submissions made by the representatives of the parties, I turned my mind to a possible downgrading of the charge to level 1. At this point, Mr. Lewis' final submission became relevant. He was helpfully guessing at what might have happened and inadvertently inviting me to do the same. And whatever a Tribunal should or should not do, is to guess to achieve an outcome. In short I do not know on the evidence, and to the relevant standard of proof, what happened in the corridor leading to the stairway in those few seconds after the batsmen and fielding side came in for lunch. I cannot be comfortably satisfied as to the truth of either version of the evidence."

Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Anoop on August 4, 2014, 18:40 GMT

    Why do you need to resort to so much verbal abuse when you can perform otherwise ? If you cannot enjoy a game why play it ?

  • RAJARAMAN on August 4, 2014, 8:23 GMT

    If the umpires are active, many instances of foul-mouthing can be curbed ... they are hopelessly without powers to do anything in the field, merely counting deliveries ...

  • Bob on August 4, 2014, 6:39 GMT

    No complaints.. The man hearing the charge was a gentleman well versed in the law..and he therefore would uphold the protocol of innocent until PROVEN guilty. It was up to those who brought the charge, ie India, to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Anderson had done what they accused him of. India obviously failed to do that so there was no alternative but to find Anderson Not Guilty. That's all there is to it...That's the way the law works.. and we should be thankful that it does.

  • Steven on August 4, 2014, 3:14 GMT

    Still find it hard to believe both players were not guilty of something he's basically say nothing happened we know that's not true something did happen no evidence is a cop out to me there had to be someone neutral around and witnessed it surely ok time to for both teams not to defend there players and come out and say they have made it clear to them they have sailed close to the wind here and they need to pull it back abit cos if there's a next time they won't be treated so lightly and now let's concentrate on winning the series that would be my message to them both

  • Sugesh on August 4, 2014, 2:58 GMT

    Drop Kohli and Dhawan for next match.

  • rob on August 4, 2014, 0:17 GMT

    India might not have got the ruling they desired, but I think this will serve as a warning to all teams and players. Hard cricket is fine, desirable in fact, but hostilities should cease the moment the umpire whips the bails off at the end of session or days play.

    I don't agree with the concept of playing the game in complete silence and applauding the opposition every time they do something good. At schoolboy level it's fair enough but at international level it reeks of a 1950's Boys Own story. Those yarns were never the reality, not even in the 50's.

    Let's play it as hard as possible but keep our hands and mouths to ourselves. How hard can it be? .. Most of us do that in our personal lives every day of the week, so why can't our cricketers?

  • Dummy4 on August 4, 2014, 0:06 GMT

    My favourite fast bowling pairs are: Freddie Truman & Brian Statham of England,, and Curtly Ambrose & Courtnety Walsh of West Indies. If my old memory disc has not crashed yet, they never indulged in this nonsensical verbal abusing tactics. Their impeccable and penetrative bowling talked for them.

    Dennice Lille is acclaimed to be one of the greatest ever in fast bowling, in contemporary cricket history. In his playing days, I never liked him, for his non-cricketing excesses in the field. Now, with aging he has mellowed down and is a pleasant gentleman, as anyone who dealt with him at the MRF pace Foundation will vouch for.

    So, hopefully, Jimmy can transform into a gentleman, one day.

  • Kuldeep on August 3, 2014, 22:18 GMT

    @vkias.: It is very easy to post a one-sided comment like yours. Let me provide some actual facts and hope that it helps rid of such a one-sided reaction. Since 1st Jan 1990, India have been dismissed for a score < 100, 5 TIMES in Tests, whereas England have been dismissed for a score < 100, 6 TIMES in Tests. What does that tell you? So one can equally talk about how India might rip through the England batting lineup and dismiss them for < 100. Here are links for you: Indian < 100:;event=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;runsmax1=99;runsval1= runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team; view=innings;wicketsmin1=10;wicketsval1=wickets England < 100:;event=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;runsmax1=99;runsval1=runs; spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team;view= innings;wicketsmin1=10;wicketsval1=wickets


  • Kevin on August 3, 2014, 19:05 GMT

    At this rate we'll need dressing rooms on opposite sides of the ground!

  • ESPN on August 3, 2014, 18:41 GMT

    This should be forgotten about now. Anderson was not guilty of the charge levelled against him by the Indian captain. We should concentrate on the the action on the cricket field.

  • No featured comments at the moment.