Teen found guilty of manslaughter for on-field actions

[Agustin]

An article on a tragic case in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...f-manslaughter-in-rugby-death/article1157486/

The judge made reference to the actions being beyond "any standard by which the game is played". The ruling seems to begin to draw (or uphold?) a line between the consequences of actions within the spirit of the game and those outside.

 

[Mat 04]

A strong statement indeed...

 

[Dixie]

Judge Duncan told the court that he accepted the evidence of the game's referee that the accused — who had played aggressively and fought with referees during the game — ....

Sounds like the referee may have been one who feels that youngsters shouldn't be subject to all the nastiness of cards?

 

[Adam]

Maybe if that judgement filters out into the wider rugby world then players (especially juniors) may respect their opposition more like they used to.

 

[ExHookah]

Certainly, considering that referee guidelines for spear tackles are now an immediate Red, I think that the governing bodies and referee managers are making sure that the outside world cannot accuse any of us of being soft on dealing with spears.

I've had two spear tackles in matches, and both have received a red.

 

[Agustin]

Maybe if that judgement filters out into the wider rugby world then players (especially juniors) may respect their opposition more like they used to.

Has anyone heard of similar judgments in other countries?

 

[ExHookah]

Seeing as the two forums have been linked recently, this is what I posted on there.

[quote title=Floppykid wrote on Thu, 28 May 2009 18:15]Not a good advertisement for rugby there.
Its also tragic, two lives ruined.

OK, I'll address your second comment first, and agree, it is absolutely tragic. An awful situation for both parties.

Now in terms of rugby, obviously it is not good to have our sport involved in something as high profile as this. However it is important to note that spear tackles are totally forbidden, and the game management guidelines clearly indicate that there is zero tolerance for spears, and that they are an automatic red card.

All of this is important on so many levels:

- The sport as a whole objects to the action
- The governing bodies formally object to the action
- The referees are formally instructed to immediately eject anyone performing the action.

So there's no way that anyone can enter the sport thinking that spear tackles are acceptable, and nobody outside the sport can accuse the sport of condoning a dangerous act.

This ruling is going to have a lot of publicity, all over the planet, and it's important that a consistent message is conveyed. This is very different to an incident of someone being injured (or worse) due to something that is an accepted part of the sport.

 

[ExHookah]

Has anyone heard of similar judgments in other countries?

I think this is going to be well publicized across all of sports because it is setting a precedent.

In my opinion this case is significant because frequently an incident like this ends up with the governing body of the sport, or the match official, being charged with the blame. This case shows a judicial body holding a sporting participant liable for an action that was not considered acceptable or reasonable within that sport. Rugby is a very physical sport, but the reason that people are not maimed and killed on a weekly basis is because the sport has laws that control the actions of the players.

 

[SimonSmith]

Not manslaughter per se.
There have been plenty of soccer cases - Elliott v Saunders, for example - that have been personal injury.
I think there have been police-driven prosecutions as well - didn't David Bishop do time?

There is a legal concept of volenti non fit injuria that helps outlien acceptable and non-acceptable behavior on the field of play.

 

[KML1]

The report suggests that the assault was after the game had ended.

"As the game ended, there was a confrontation between the two, which ended with an act of violence that shocked onlookers"...

I haven't heard of this case before. Does that change matters?

 

[SimonSmith]

Amateur legal, but probably yes.

Once the game has ended, your 'right' to strike someone ends. Tackling, for example, is assaulting someone if carried out in public...

 

[Staybound]

I'm not sure what the controversy / potential for controversy is here. Some kid violently assaults another kid and, as a result, a tragic death ensues. The fact this happened shortly after a rugby / hockey / cricket / tiddlywinks match seems, to me at least, irrelevant. To be honest I'm not sure whether I'd change my view if this happened after or during the match either. If someone does something that is clearly intended to harm another person then they need to accept the consequences.

Now how would I feel if this were a match I had refereed? Pretty bad to be honest. I guess the question "could I have done something to stop this?" will be bouncing through the minds of the referee, any adult present and most of the kids. I'd also say that the defence "he went on to the pitch expecting physicallity and that's what he got" wouldn't hold water with me. I've played countless matches and yes, there is an expectation of a physical encounter. There's even a recongition that the physical encounter can sometimes extend beyond the bounds of the rules / laws of the game. However I do believe there is a line that exists between what one could reasonably expect physically and what one would reasonably expect not to happen. For instance, someone tackles a player legitimately and the player falls badly and suffers severe injury or death. I'd argue that this would be tragic but within the boundaries of expected risk. If someone sucker punches another player in the temple whilst he's looking elsewhere and they croak I'd argue that was not in the reasonable bounds of expectation and would be worthy of the full penalty of the law.

This is a sad case for all involved, particularly the family of the deceased. I'm not sure, though, it sets a precedent that we need to be overly concerned about.

 

[Dixie]

I haven't heard of this case before. Does that change matters?

KML1, despite the respect in which you are held on this forum and up and down the land during panel appointments, I fear the judicial authorities in Canada are unlikely to concern themselves with whether or not the case has reached your august ears.

 

[ddjamo]

I am going to ref in this canadian society starting next week. got this email from a society officer:
---------------
Dave the referee was one of ours. The story has been carried extensively here; the article Tom includes is brief and gives short shrift to the circumstances. The incident was retaliatory and happened away from the play and did not involve a ball carrier. It was in fact a mugging. The player involved was red-carded at the time. It was a criminal prosecution with charges being pressed by the Crown against the wishes of the parents of the boy that died. There are no civil actions anticipated.

The whole thing is rather unfortunate and all I have talked to are in agreement with the outcome.
---------------

 

[Ian_Cook]

This took place after the game ended, so it might just as well have happened in another place, a day, a week or a month later. It would have been interesting to see what would have happen if this action had taken place during the match itself

I don't have a problem with this person copping a charge for manslaughter, but I do have a problem with how the judge in this case justified his decision.

“The playing field is not a criminal law-free zone,” Judge Duncan said. “The laws of the land apply in the same way as they do elsewhere … There was no justification in self defence. Accordingly, the defendant committed an assault, an unlawful act. That unlawful act caused death.”

The judge rejected the idea that a player implicitly accepts risk by stepping onto a playing field. Instead, he stressed that players must obey the law, as well as established codes of athletic conduct.

This judge has said that criminal law applies of the sports field. If that is the case then;

► EVERY tackle is an assault by the tackler on the ball carrier,
► EVERY cleanout is an assault on those players being cleaned-out

How long before some idiot has a player tackle him and doesn't like how hard he has been tackled, so he (or his parent) goes to the Police and lays an assault charge? How long before a scrum collapse kills somebody, and an opposing front row player is charged with murder/manslaughter because he is accused of deliberately collapsing the scrum?

This judge has made a statement that does not bear any relation to what happened. His statement relates to "during" the match when the incident occurred "after" the match, a big difference that this judge obviously does not understand. He should have judged the case fairly and squarely on the merits of what happened, and not even brought where it happened into consideration. What an ignorant tit!!

I bet if this had happened on an Ice Hockey rink, the considerable resources (and cash) of the NHL, as well as that of the CHA, would have been brought to bear.

I can smell an appeal from all the way over here in New Zealand.

 

[Dickie E]

I interpret "As the game ended, there was a confrontation between the two, ..." as meaning towards the end of the game.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I can only base my comments on the highly subjective press report (so not on a legal transcript) and one that is delibertably sensationalist, vague and ambiguous imho.

As KML1 says it appears that the attack may have happened after the match and not during active play.

Youth violence (and the levels of it in terms of both volumes and intensity) are a global problem and it saddens me that this incident occurred at a rugby match (but it could have been ice hockey, soccer, athletics, etc or a shopping mall, a bar, a club, a car park, anywhere). Usually rugby is perceived as an enabler to overcome wild out-of-control youth behaviour.

This is manslaughter not murder (of which there are now far to many, involving knife and gun), so indicative of non-intentional death.
The defence lawyers may have been clutching at straws in using the defence strategy they did, and the judge's remarks responed to that defence.

I find the judge's remarks a little over the top and somehat ill-considered. Perhaps the Court of Appeal (if one is made) will censure him or correct / dilute his comments, but that is unlikely to be reported as it is isn't sensationaliust enough.

Zero tolerance to violence and applying YC RC sanctions at youth level (U13 and upwards) has always been my and our Society's approach, establishing control and discipline, which in 99% of our clubs and coaches approach it.

But I await the furore (on both sides) that will break on here in the next few months when the new RFU Child Welfare policies and especially the draft section on explicit non-physical intervention is circulated. Posibly rugby referees as social workers, policemen and rugby volunteers all in one !

 

[OB..]

This judge has said that criminal law applies of the sports field. If that is the case then;

► EVERY tackle is an assault by the tackler on the ball carrier,
► EVERY cleanout is an assault on those players being cleaned-out

Already covered:

There is a legal concept of volenti non fit injuria that helps outlien acceptable and non-acceptable behavior on the field of play.

 

[Dixie]

This took place after the game ended, so it might just as well have happened in another place, a day, a week or a month later. It would have been interesting to see what would have happen if this action had taken place during the match itself

...


This judge has made a statement that does not bear any relation to what happened. His statement relates to "during" the match when the incident occurred "after" the match, a big difference that this judge obviously does not understand. .... What an ignorant tit!!

Some might reserve the "ignorant tit" epithet for those who, after reading an ill-written press summary, feel better qualified to comment on the case than the judge who sat through days of eye witness testimony.

As it happened, the incident DID occur during the game - specifically at a ruck, but allegedly after the referee had blown his whistle to halt the play. A rather more detailed report of the early days of the trial is here.

 

[andyscott]

He committed an ilegal act, both in the laws of the game and the laws of the land, he should be held to account, if that means in the criminal court.

With regards to every tackle being assault, it isnt, by agreeing to play you agree to the physical contact within the laws of the game. That includes hard tackles, but not unlawful ones.

Something like this may stop stupid spear tackles.