ECB to take no action over 1991 match-fixing allegations

At its meeting earlier today, the Management Board of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) received and approved a Report from Mr Gerard Elias QC, Chairman of the ECB's Discipline Standing Committee. The Report concerns investigations carried out into allegations that were made publicly by Mr Don Topley. The Board decided that the Report should be published in full. The full text of the Report is as follows.

REPORT FROM MR GERARD ELIAS QC, Chairman of Discipline Standing Committee, to CHAIRMAN & MANAGEMENT BOARD of ECB.

I report the result of the investigations carried out into the allegations publicly reiterated last year by Mr. Don Topley relating to matches played between Lancashire and Essex in August 1991. The Management Board asked me to see Mr. Topley and to carry out any further appropriate investigations, including consideration as to whether or not the Police should be involved.

Subsequent to the interviews I carried out with Mr. Topley on Friday 5 May last, with the assistance of one other member of the Discipline Committee, and in circumstances of the utmost confidentiality, I spoke to a substantial number of other witnesses and potential witnesses. Following that process, I concluded that the matter required further investigation and reported this to the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of the ECB enclosing transcripts of all the interviews which had taken place. I also sought independent legal advice and I made the ECB aware that such advice was to the effect that the transcripts, in full, should be passed over to the Police.

This I immediately resolved to do and, accordingly, our legal advisers passed the full transcripts to the Metropolitan Police. They advised that as the allegations concerned conduct which had taken place at Old Trafford, the matter should be referred to Greater Manchester Police. I then arranged for all the evidence which had been accumulated to be passed to Greater Manchester Police.

The ECB has now been advised that after due consideration and a full review of the evidence the Greater Manchester Police have concluded that no further action is to be taken. I understand that a significant reason for this decision is that the allegations Mr Topley made and the evidence he provided are insufficiently corroborated for any criminal proceedings to be instituted. Additionally, I believe that the Greater Manchester Police have taken into account, in reaching their decision, the number of potential witnesses who rebut the allegations.

I understand that the Metropolitan Police have independently reached a similar conclusion.

The allegations concern circumstances which occurred nearly ten years ago. Neither the ECB nor the Discipline Committee have the powers of the police or their investigative resources. In any event, it would not seem to me to be prudent to attempt to "second guess" the police or their findings and, bearing all these factors in mind, I am driven to the conclusion that we can take matters no further. In particular, it is plain that there is insufficient evidence against any individual falling under the Board's jurisdiction (and I cannot and do not consider matters beyond our jurisdiction) to bring a case before a Discipline Panel.

I have considered the question as to how the allegations were investigated when they were first publicised in 1994. The conclusion now reached by the Police is consistent with the conclusion reached by the then TCCB when these allegations were first publicised in 1994 (three years after the alleged conduct took place) namely that the allegations were insufficiently corroborated and that there were a substantial number of potential witnesses who rebutted them.

Looking to the future, were allegations as serious as these to be made at any time, the Police have suggested that the ECB institute a system in which there would be early involvement of the Police to ensure that matters could be promptly and fully investigated. I propose to continue the Board's policy of complete cooperation with the police in matters of this kind and to ensure that no delay occurs in passing on appropriate information to the relevant force.

I know that the Board will be determined to learn any lessons which can be learnt arising from the allegations that have been made and the processes for dealing with them. There has, of course, been the introduction of Match Referees last year. The Guidelines for the modus operandi of Match Referees make it clear that any suggestion of match fixing in the future will be carefully and contemporaneously scrutinised and investigated. Any wrongdoing will inevitably be detected. In such circumstances, the Discipline Committee can be expected to act firmly and decisively.

In seeking to remove any possible obstruction to the prompt revelation of any wrongdoing, or the possible victimisation of anyone believed to be a "whistleblower", I strongly recommend to the Management Board that a "confidential" hotline be established and publicised so that any player who wishes to complain about anything which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket or which may bring the game of cricket, or any cricketer or group of cricketers, into disrepute should be able to communicate directly with the Chairman of Discipline, or his nominee, on a strictly private and confidential basis.