court case

[crossref]

The quote you posted from the pre-trial hearing contains several references from both sides to whether the people concerned did, or did not adhere to the laws of rugby. They are using that to bolster their arguments.

Indeed, and I pointed that out as interesting factor

But this case isn't one where they agree on the facts, but have different opinions on the meanings of the laws of the game

This is one where they agree on the laws of the game but disagree on the facts. So having an elite referee there won't help.

Legally, I am not sure it really matters anyway
The defence will argue that

'It was a rugby injury, arising through the risks inherent in playing the game.'

'The claimant, by participating in the match impliedly consented to the risk of injury, which has resulted in her injury

As an example being tackled late is clearly again the laws of rugby .. but is also clearly a foreseeable risk you "consent to" when deciding to play .


Statements from witnesses will be important, as to what actually happened but I don't think the referees witness statement will be any more or less valuable than a player, per se

 

[Phil E]

I disagree, but can't be bothered to argue it.

 

[crossref]

I disagree, but can't be bothered to argue it.

Well tbf neither of us really knows .. the reason it has got to the high court is because the law is to some extent untested

 

[Stu10]

There were two tackles

First DC(DW) tackled NK and supposedly NK was annoyed at the successful tackle and vowed revenge

Then shortly after NK tackled DC(DW) (who was in the 9 position behind a ruck) causing the injury

You're right, I got it wrong... Miss Watts tackled Ms King prior to the tackle that resulted in injury.

 

[Volun-selected]

I wonder how much intent may play into this - will the prosecution look to paint this as NK deliberately using the dynamics of the game to enable a catastrophic injury? If a civil case then it’s just got to balance of argument rather than for a criminal case.

 

[crossref]

I wonder how much intent may play into this - will the prosecution look to paint this as NK deliberately using the dynamics of the game to enable a catastrophic injury? If a civil case then it’s just got to balance of argument rather than for a criminal case.

it's a civil case, so there is no prosecution.

according to the press report (pace MW) - the complainant is not alleging intent but recklessness .

Mr Weir accepted that Ms King - who was playing fly half - had not set out to injure his client, but claimed she was reckless and 'threw her weight around' on the pitch.

this makes sense to me, it would be harder to substantiate intent. Also note that dangerous and reckless chimes with the language in Law 9

 

[Phil E]

this makes sense to me, it would be harder to substantiate intent. Also note that dangerous and reckless chimes with the language in Law 9

Yeah but...

... this case isn't about the laws of Rugby, but those of the land

Wonder who said that

 

[crossref]

Wonder who said that

sigh, yes, in the context of why we shouldn't expect a ref as expert witness (see post 21).
this case won't turn upon whether what King did contravenes Law 9 or not.
It will turn on risk of injury watts 'consented to' by playing, and whether what happened was a forseeable risk of playing rugby.
also on the issue of what duty of care players owe to eachother

It's an interesting one. Historically it has been very hard to win these sorts of claims.

edit - here's primer

Sports injuries claims - and the issue of consent – Wards Solicitors in Bristol & South West

The risk of injury is a normal part of playing sport, particularly in contact sports. Injuries happen but most of the time, these are relatively minor. By taking part, players...

wards.uk.com

 

[Harry]

I spoke (briefly) to the barrister we use at work. He says the case will revolve around both the laws of the land and the laws of Rugby.
He also uses the phrase "reasonable person" This phrase pops up a lot in law.

Basically its about what a "reasonable person" in this case a player would expect to happen on the Rugby pitch.

For example:- The laws of Rugby forbid a late tackle but a reasonable person would expect late tackles to happen. But the same reasonable person would not expect to get punched with a knuckle duster.

Once you get passed what a "reasonable person" would expect on the pitch then the law of the land takes over.

As to newspaper reports of what happens in a court of law, if they described the colour of the furniture I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[crossref]

I spoke (briefly) to the barrister we use at work. He says the case will revolve around both the laws of the land and the laws of Rugby.
He also uses the phrase "reasonable person" This phrase pops up a lot in law.

Basically its about what a "reasonable person" in this case a player would expect to happen on the Rugby pitch.

For example:- The laws of Rugby forbid a late tackle but a reasonable person would expect late tackles to happen. But the same reasonable person would not expect to get punched with a knuckle duster.

Once you get passed what a "reasonable person" would expect on the pitch then the law of the land takes over.

As to newspaper reports of what happens in a court of law, if they described the colour of the furniture I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

exactly so.

so the problem that DC faces is that despite it being against the laws of the game to tackle recklessly, or to punch .. a reasonable person playing rugby can reasonably be expect to sometimes be tackled recklessly and (alas) to be punched.

so DC faces a high bar to winning. showing that the tackle breached law 9 won't be enough, she'll have to show it was so reckless that a reasonable person wouldn't expect it. Or conversely that NK owed her a duty of care, that she didn't exercise

 

[belladonna]

I think the point here is the deliberate intent to injure, allegedly saying for example she was going to "break her".

And of course belly-flopping on an opponent cannot be a legal tackle either.

But the respondent denies both these allegations, so it will be interesting to see what witnesses eg the referee say about what actually happened.

Personally I suspect the claimant is right but will have a hard time proving her case, sadly.

Also, don't players have a responsibility under (rugby and UK) law not to do anything that is dangerous to another player?

(Sorry, written before reading more recent replies.)

 

[SimonSmith]

I think the point here is the deliberate intent to injure, allegedly saying for example she was going to "break her".

And of course belly-flopping on an opponent cannot be a legal tackle either.

But the respondent denies both these allegations, so it will be interesting to see what witnesses eg the referee say about what actually happened.

Personally I suspect the claimant is right but will have a hard time proving her case, sadly.

Also, don't players have a responsibility under (rugby and UK) law not to do anything that is dangerous to another player?

(Sorry, written before reading more recent replies.)

See: Dean Saunders/Paul Elliott

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think the point here is the deliberate intent to injure, allegedly saying for example she was going to "break her".

What does "break her" mean?

 

[crossref]

According to the report they are not alleging deliberate intent

Mr Weir accepted that Ms King - who was playing fly half - had not set out to injure his client, but claimed she was reckless and 'threw her weight around' on the pitch

 

[Phil E]

If I was the defence (and had just watched a whole series of Rumpole of the Bailey), I would show a hundred clips of top level players flopping on top of rucks and then blame World Rugby for not enforcing the law, and allowing it to become acceptable.

 

[crossref]

I think that what matters is not so much whether it is acceptable, but rather whether it is forseeable

I have a suspicion this particular case might turn on what duty of care was owed by NK

 

[Phil E]

I think that what matters is not so much whether it is acceptable, but rather whether it is forseeable

I have a suspicion this particular case might turn on what duty of care was owed by NK

If its become acceptable, then its expected to happen, so must be foreseeable.

 

[belladonna]

See: Dean Saunders/Paul Elliott

I think the difference here is that in this case it's not just reckless. While it is accepted that she had not set out to injure, it was "a deliberate act of retribution".

She alleges Ms King was playing with “aggressive physicality” and was bent on “retribution” when she tackled her in a rolling scrum.

Opening the case on Tuesday, Robert Weir KC, for Mrs Czernuszka, said a “beef” had developed between the two women during the game, partly caused by an earlier clash in which Ms King tried to tackle the smaller woman but “came off worse”.

Mr Weir accepted that Ms King - who was playing fly half - had not set out to injure his client, but claimed she was reckless and “threw her weight around” on the pitch.

“This was a deliberate act of retaliation, designed to smash the claimant, although without the intention to injure,” he claimed.

https://archive.is/zhPeW

 

[belladonna]

According to the report they are not alleging deliberate intent

They are not alleging deliberate intent to injure, but they are claiming it was "a deliberate act of retribution".

Mr Weir accepted that Ms King - who was playing fly half - had not set out to injure his client, but claimed she was reckless and “threw her weight around” on the pitch.

“This was a deliberate act of retaliation, designed to smash the claimant, although without the intention to injure,” he claimed.

https://archive.is/zhPeW

 

[belladonna]

What does "break her" mean?

Your guess is as good as mine Sadly I don't think anyone could dispute that she did end up broken, though

From the witness box, Mrs Czernuszka said she had begun to feel nervous as the game wore on, particularly after a team mate told her she believed she was “going to get done”.

And she claimed Ms King made her feelings clear when she overheard her say: “that f---ing number seven, I’m going to break her”.

https://archive.is/zhPeW