Not Guilty. I love the burden of proof statement. In all probability of course.
In the conclusion to their findings, the Commission said: “There is simply insufficient convincing evidence that could lead us to the conclusion that we prefer one party’s evidence to that of another. The burden of proving the case rests on The FA. In our judgment, the evidence is quite simply not sufficiently compelling to drive us to the conclusion that The FA has discharged its burden of proving the case. Accordingly, we find the Charge not proven.”
However, the FA then appealed the decision of the Commission on the basis that it had “materially misdirected itself in respect of and misapplied the standard of proof that was applicable to the case”.
The Appeal Board, which was chaired by David Casement KC and also included Francis Duku and Laura McCallum, met on November 18 to hear the appeal, and their findings were published at the end of last week.
They revealed in their findings that the original papers presented to the Regulatory Commission consisted of 83 pages which included 12 pages of evidence as well as some video clips.
In contrast, the Appeal Board were given a bundle of papers running to 1,583 pages, and both Watford and the FA were represented by King’s Counsel (Nick De Marco KC represented Watford).
In their written reasons for rejecting the FA appeal, the Appeals Board noted that Mr De Marco KC pointed out that the original Commission “found the case to be no more than one person’s word against another. The video evidence did not show any spitting. There was no identification by the referee of any evidence of spitting whether by seeing it happen or seeing saliva on the complainant when he approached the referee”. |  |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
