Hair v ICC, employment tribunal, London, Oct 1st to 9th

"Big-hitters take sides for Hair's benefit fixture"

By Scyld Berry

After the world 20-over championship came to an exciting climax in South Africa last week, there was the possibility of a lull in the cricket calendar, if only for a few days. But no. An interesting fixture in a longer format starts tomorrow: not a five-day Test, but a 12-day contest between the Australian umpire Darrell Hair and the International Cricket Council.

The venue is the Central London Employment Tribunal at Kingsway in Holborn, a bracing walk away from the Oval where Hair became something something of a celebrity last August. The Test match between England and Pakistan was awarded to the former after the latter refused to play, following the decision by Hair and his fellow umpire, the West Indian Billy Doctrove, that Pakistan had tampered with the ball: the first such incident since the beginning of Test cricket in 1877.

Not perhaps since Georgian aristocrats played matches for wagers of several thousand guineas has such a large sum been officially at stake at a cricket contest in London; certainly the sum of $490,000 (£250,000) awarded to India as the world Twenty20 winners pales by comparison. Hair is suing the ICC for racial discrimination and racial harassment and seeking compensation for loss of earnings and injury to feelings that could be in excess of $1 million, while the barristers brought in by the two sides for the tribunal hearing, due to last until Oct 12, are not exactly bottom-of-the-range or bargain-basement.

Hair's side is being captained by Robert Griffiths QC, who not merely belongs to MCC but is a member of their committee. In addition to Gray's Inn, he happens to have chambers in Sydney, where Hair has returned to live after three years in Lincolnshire. But the reason Hair has employed Griffiths is that last December he co-authored an article in the New Law Journal which was brought to Hair's attention.

Normally cricket is a world away from the legal minutiae of ab initio or de novo findings: there is nothing like a fast off-cutter in the box to stop somebody spouting legalese. But some of cricket's laws, still being written and up-dated by MCC, have become so convoluted that only a lawyer could comprehend them. And, having examined the evidence of the Oval Test, and notwithstanding the aforesaid, Griffiths argued in this article that the umpire's word was law and should remain so.

A month after the Oval Test, the ICC's senior match referee, Ranjan Madugalle of Sri Lanka, conducted a hearing and found no evidence of ball-tampering. Pakistan's captain, Inzamam ul-Haq, was however found
guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to play on the fourth afternoon when the umpires decreed, and was banned for four one-day internationals.

Hair's case is that racism then kicked in: that he and Doctrove jointly took the decision to change the ball and impose a five-run penalty against Pakistan, but his career has been ruined and Doctrove's has not. For, subsequently, Hair has not stood in a match involving a Test-playing country, only minnows like Kenya. Until the end of March next year he is on contract to the ICC as a member of their elite panel of umpires, but that is all.

The ICC are being led by Michael Beloff QC. Among many other things – like being captain of the school at Eton and president of Trinity College, Oxford – Beloff is chair of the ICC's code of conduct commission and has nailed the odd ne'er-do-well to the wall. Griffiths of MCC v Beloff of ICC: a legal battle between two Oxford-trained, cricket-loving barristers which John Mortimer could have conceived.

The focus is likely to be on the meeting which the ICC executive board held in Mumbai last November. Hair was discussed in detail – and he has been no stranger to controversy. They decided to form a sub-group to discuss Hair in more detail and the three members of it will no doubt be closely questioned. One was Sir John Anderson, who has been chairman of New Zealand Cricket for 12 years; the second was Dr Nasim Ashraf, chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board; and the third Peter Chingoka, president of Zimbabwe Cricket. One representative from each of three cricket-playing continents.

On this sub-group's recommendation the ICC decided that Hair should be stood down from umpiring matches involving Test-playing countries. And Hair's case is that this decision was racist. The ICC, meanwhile, contend that Hair is a very good umpire technically but not good at dealing with people; that he, as the senior umpire, initiated the ball-tampering charge against Pakistan at the Oval; and that he walked out of the meeting on the fourth evening, scuppering the last chance of completing the Test, while Doctrove stayed.

It will never take over from Twenty20 but this tribunal hearing, if the mud starts to be thrown, will save October from being cricket's month of anti-climax.

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/09/30/schair130.xml


Edit: changed title of thread, enjoy all!

Should be a laugh. It was an absolute scandal that Hair was hung out to dry in the first place.

Dello wrote:Should be a laugh. It was an absolute scandal that Hair was hung out to dry in the first place.

He will have some explaining to do, asking for that $500,000. Belof QC will make him look really bad for it.

Peter Chingoka on the hair sub-committe eh?

It's a given that the ICC are an evil cadre supported by the pillars of ineptitude, greed, stupidity and corruption and they deserve the most fearful and complete punishment that the human mind can devise - think a racial discimination charge sounds a bit optimistic though. Going by my profound knowledge of employment tribunals, unless the Hair side has some dynamite evidence, racial discrimination is hard to prove and I tend to think Hair may well have been scapegoated if his co-umpire was also of the white pursuasion. But I'm sure the fine legal minds he's employed know what they're doing- just hope they're hired on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Am struggling to remember the whole Hairgate saga- but didn't someone at the ICC initiate or at least encourage the pay-off?

Eric Air Emu wrote:

Am struggling to remember the whole Hairgate saga- but didn't someone at the ICC initiate or at least encourage the pay-off?

Yes, I think you're right EAE. Hair was asked to put something down in writing. This will be a massive case, wonder if it'll uncover what's been match-fixed.

I wondered if he had a case until I saw that Peter Chingoka had been involved. Hope for Hair's sake he doesn't have a farm...

despite having an ego that Sir Edmond Hillary could not have scaled in his youth, Hair has been shabbily dealt with...it began with mumu and ended with appalling behaviour from pakistan and the ICC...i hope the cvourt awards him the judgement and after covering legal costs awards him a penny or one share in the Johnny Howard's leadership futures market

It sounded at the time like the compo thing was a setup.

The ICC tell hair to give them a figure he does and then they leak it to the press using his request for money as proof he was wrong at the oval.

All very dodgy and i can't see the harm in having people outside of cricket looking further into the whole affair.

mynah wrote:I wondered if he had a case until I saw that Peter Chingoka had been involved. Hope for Hair's sake he doesn't have a farm...

Here's a paradox.
ICC remove Zimbabwe from the list of Test playing nations - for reasons indirectly related to racial prejudice - irrespective of the colour of the human being currently being debased in that country?

So how come Chingoka is presiding on a panel which is dealing with, in essence, an incident directly related to a Test match which concerns racial prejudice?

For the sake of justice, it is hoped that Hair and his legal advisors take the ICC apart for their arrogance and their utter hypocrisy.

In answer to a question above - yes, it was Malcolm Speed, the shifty little lawyer, who reccommended that Hair put in writing his severence requirements which ensured a quiet, under the radar departure from the spotlight - before then feigning surprise at Hair's demands whilst putting what was allegedly a private matter, into the public domain.
Yet another indication of arrogant hypocrisy.

Let's hope this case opens a huge can of worms and exposes the faceless prats who claim to run (but actually ruIn) this beautiful game.

I can't see him winning a racial discrimination suit.

He's the wrong colour for a start.

JKLever wrote:He's the wrong colour for a start.

What's that supposed to mean JKL? What colour is more likely to win a race complaint? Red, pink, blue, white, cream! Reminds me of an anti-race ad which shows that 'white' people are the most coloured, skin changes with temperature/mood!

Dangerous ground there filo.

As an amusing aside - a lawyer friend once said to me that he would always prefer to have a one armed gay (male or female, mattered not), with red hair, of illegitimate Scottish birth, lame in one foot and blind in one eye but nevertheless a pathological liar with a baseless case - than having a decent, upstanding law abiding citizen who had a 'cast iron' one.

Merlin wrote:Dangerous ground there filo.

As an amusing aside - a lawyer friend once said to me that he would always prefer to have a one armed gay (male or female, mattered not), with red hair, of illegitimate Scottish birth, lame in one foot and blind in one eye but nevertheless a pathological liar with a baseless case - than having a decent, upstanding law abiding citizen who had a 'cast iron' one.

Why's it dangerous M? If the feeling is that white people are not discriminated, and, if they are, there's no point them seeking a tribunal for redress because they won't win, then something should be done to correct this. On the other hand where's the evidence to show that if you're olive/brown/black skinned you will always win a race complaint?

None. It was a flippant remark because this case pi$$es me off in the fact Hair was hung out to dry.

JKLever wrote:None. It was a flippant remark because this case pi$$es me off in the fact Hair was hung out to dry.

Sorry JKL. I don't like what happened at the Oval but I completely abhor the way Hair was treated by the ICC. Like M above, really want the whole can of worms that is that organisation to be exposed.

Aye.

There's no doubt in my mind Hair is stubborn & treats players like schoolchildren. There's also no doubt he's a better umpire than a lot of those in charge right now

JKLever wrote:Aye.

There's no doubt in my mind Hair is stubborn & treats players like schoolchildren. There's also no doubt he's a better umpire than a lot of those in charge right now

He's brave to take the ICC to court, let's hope he reveals all, everything he knows about the dirty dealings in this sport. This may clean it up.

It's funny, millions of fans abuse the guy and the ICC hangs him out to dry for standing up against chucking and ball-tampering, but now he'll be a hero if he stands up against the same type underhandedness in the ICC management.

Pity a few more people didn't notice how brave he was last year . . .

tac wrote:It's funny, millions of fans abuse the guy and the ICC hangs him out to dry for standing up against chucking and ball-tampering, but now he'll be a hero if he stands up against the same type underhandedness in the ICC management.

Pity a few more people didn't notice how brave he was last year . . .

The way he behaved at the Oval was not a display of bravery but then Inzi's behaviour was not commendable either. What the ICC did to Hair is completely unfair.

filosofee wrote:

Merlin wrote:Dangerous ground there filo.

As an amusing aside - a lawyer friend once said to me that he would always prefer to have a one armed gay (male or female, mattered not), with red hair, of illegitimate Scottish birth, lame in one foot and blind in one eye but nevertheless a pathological liar with a baseless case - than having a decent, upstanding law abiding citizen who had a 'cast iron' one.

Why's it dangerous M? If the feeling is that white people are not discriminated, and, if they are, there's no point them seeking a tribunal for redress because they won't win, then something should be done to correct this. On the other hand where's the evidence to show that if you're olive/brown/black skinned you will always win a race complaint?

Like I said - it's a dangerous road to tread filo as remarks could lead to a variety of interpretations.

My lawyer friends' off the cuff comment reflect the apathy felt in cases such as this one, brought by a whilte person against the Establishment.
However, Hair's engagement of the MCC heavyweight Robert Griffiths QC and the specific charge brought against the ICC clearly shows that they mean business.

The Tribunals findings are eagerly awaited.

Merlin wrote:

filosofee wrote:

Merlin wrote:Dangerous ground there filo.

As an amusing aside - a lawyer friend once said to me that he would always prefer to have a one armed gay (male or female, mattered not), with red hair, of illegitimate Scottish birth, lame in one foot and blind in one eye but nevertheless a pathological liar with a baseless case - than having a decent, upstanding law abiding citizen who had a 'cast iron' one.

Why's it dangerous M? If the feeling is that white people are not discriminated, and, if they are, there's no point them seeking a tribunal for redress because they won't win, then something should be done to correct this. On the other hand where's the evidence to show that if you're olive/brown/black skinned you will always win a race complaint?

Like I said - it's a dangerous road to tread filo as remarks could lead to a variety of interpretations.

My lawyer friends' off the cuff comment reflect the apathy felt in cases such as this one, brought by a whilte person against the Establishment.
However, Hair's engagement of the MCC heavyweight Robert Griffiths QC and the specific charge brought against the ICC clearly shows that they mean business.

The Tribunals findings are eagerly awaited.

And a 'coloured' person would fare better against a, mainly, white establishment? I doubt many, regardless of who they are, would beat the establishment who have the money and the power to lie, cheat and buy off the Judges.

Shaoib and Asif did . . .

tac wrote:It's funny, millions of fans abuse the guy and the ICC hangs him out to dry for standing up against chucking and ball-tampering, but now he'll be a hero if he stands up against the same type underhandedness in the ICC management.

Pity a few more people didn't notice how brave he was last year . . .

Quite right tac - however, back then, sadly, it was Speed's "exposure" of Hair's "greedy severance demands" that threw the whole issue out of kilter - something I genuinely believe Speed and his ICC cohorts intended to happen - (having first solicited Hair to provide his severence package expectations).
Hypocrisy of the highest order - of Judas proportions quite frankly!! And he, once a friend of Hair's ... with friends like Speed who needs an enemy.

The PCB and its supporters clung onto that magical $500K - and the ICC got what they wanted.... a smokescreen deflecting total cause and blame onto the greed and underhandedness of Hair - job done.

This is one issue I hope is fully exposed - thus forcing the spiv that is Malcolm Speed speedily off the ICC council.

tac wrote:Shaoib and Asif did . . .

In a tribunal in England?