Francois Steyn
SANZAR has lodged an appeal against the outcome of a judicial hearing held on Monday 23 March that found Francois Steyn of the Sharks not guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (j).
A SANZAR Appeals Committee, chaired by Terry Willis, with Nigel Hampton QC and Robert Stelzner SC as members, will hear the appeal via videoconference on Friday 27 March 2015 at 08:00 SA Time (17:00 AEDT, 19:00 NZ Time).
Hearing Details: 27 March 2015 – 08:00 SA Time (17:00 AEDT, 19:00 NZ Time) via videoconference
Appeals Committee: Terry Willis (Chairman), Nigel Hampton QC, Robert Stelzner SC
Player: Francois Steyn
Team: Cell C Sharks
Position: Centre
Date of Incident: 21 March 2015
Outcome of original SANZAR judicial hearing: At a SANZAR judicial hearing on 23 March 2015, SANZAR Judicial Officer, Jannie Lubbe SC, found Francois Steyn not guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and / or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Kry vir jou vetgat, kry vir jou jou arrogante bliksem
@ Victoriabok:
Stem saam.
Sharks to declare UDI?????????
Arrogant Union. Arrogant players. Arrogant supporters (mostly).
Am I missing something? Sanzar is appealing its own decision?
kwas wrote:
I’m not sure that the judiciary panels are all SANZAR appointed, and obviously the council come from outside.
So maybe it’s more a show of faith in one of their referees by SANZAR and a way for them to show that they believe he acted correctly and that they support his decision?
3 @ kwas:
Look at it like this…
Like in a Criminal Case (and this is not one, I know), there are 2 Parties to a Judicial Hearing.
In a Criminal Case – there is the STATE vs ACCUSED
In a Super Rugby Judicial Hearing – there is the prosecution = SANZAR vs the ACCUSED (Fransie Steyn)
Should a result not go either Party’s way, they have the right to Appeal.
Is the judicial hearing supposed to be independent of SANZAR, even if said hearing has been appointed SANZAR?
6 @ Lion4ever:
Let’s face it, some players (and Unions?) get special treatment at the hearings.
It is even so in the JHB club scene. Guilty until proven innocent.
Those with the “right” representatives get proven innocent.
@ Scrumdown:
Looks like it.
Look it’s like Zoomer and his cadre deployment.
He changes the personel until he gets the result he wants.
😆
5 @ grootblousmile:
Hi GBS thanks for that comparison to explain the situation, so in both cases the body whose personnel (judge etc) are conducting the trial and deciding on guilt/no guilt and impose sanctions get to appeal against the decisions their people have made. I suppose this makes it fair as the defendant gets to appeal.
If I am correct as far as I understand precedent is important in law, so how many/any examples have we got of SANZAR appealing the decisions of it’s disciplinary hearings and what were the general outcomes if there is any precedence of this happening?
@ Scrumdown:
2
Why don’t you really tell us how you feel about all thing Sharks?
10 @ Bullscot:
One of the most fundamental cornerstones of a Democracy is that the Judiciary HAS TO BE INDEPENDENT from Government (even though it is funded by Government).
We see the INDEPENDENCE of the Judiciary all over the democratic world, and also in SA.
For example – Our Constitutional Court rules on the Constitutionality of Laws already passed by Parliament and / or pushed through by the Government of the day, through Parliament.
Exactly the same with Criminal Cases… altough the STATE (Prosecution) is one of the 2 Parties in a Criminal case, the Judiciary itself (Magistrate / Magistrate & Assessors / Judge(s), Judge(s) and Assessors) is independent and gives rulings FOR OR AGAINST the STATE and / or FOR OR AGAINST the ACCUSED / DEFENDANT(S).
In other simple terms, The Judiary is NOT the STATE (Prosecution), they are not one and the same.
In the Oscar Pistorius Case for instance, the Verdict of the Honourable Judge Masipa was against the STATE, as Oscar was found NOT GUILTY of murder, but guilty of the lessor competant verdict of Manslaughter. The State has since appealed the decision, saying the Judge erred in not finding him guilty of murder.
Now let’s compare the Judicial Action in Super Rugby Judicial Hearings…
Even though the Judicial Hearing Panel and procedure for the Hearings are constituted and appointed by SANZAR, the Presiding Officer has to be INDEPENDENT to be able to bring out fair and equitable rulings FOR OR AGAINST the “Prosecution” and / or FOR OR AGAINST the “Accused / Defendant”.
In Fransie’s case, it was indeed so, the Judicial Hearing’s Presiding Officer (Adv Lubbe SC), ruled against the “Prosecution” and in favour of the “Accused / Defendant”… so the aggrieved party who is not happy with the ruling has the right to appeal.
Precedents:
In Court Matters, both Criminal and Civil, we in SA make use of a System of Precedents (Case Law) in addition to our National and Local Legislation and Common Law.
It basically means that a competant Court of Instance has the obligation to follow the decisions of a competent Court A Quo (a Court in the same Division or a Higher Court which has ruled on similar facts).
Whether the Super Rugby Judiciary is bound to a set of earlier Precedents, I unfortunately do not know and cannot tell you without asking for clarification and / or researching the matter further.
At first glance I would think that they are NOT bound by a set of earlier Precedents… simple reason being it would involve constituting a whole set of documenting and pubication of prior rulings, which could evolve to something very big on it’s own.
What we should be able to demand though, is CONSISTENCY…
@ Scrumdown:
Over the top man.Arrogant supporters.?Both of us?
@ grootblousmile:
Hi GBS.Double jeopardy much.?
Regards.Rye
14 @ ryecatcher:
Explain… I don’t follow what you are saying?
@ Scrumdown:
How many of 3 identifiable supporters is
mostly?Not 3. because then you would have
said all.Not one, because then you would have
said “the minority of”
So 2 it is.”We happy few.We band of brothers”
Rye.
@ grootblousmile:
Tried,found innocent.In certain countries one cannot be
re tried for the same offence.This is the principle
of double jeopardy .
Hope that you now understand.
17 @ ryecatcher:
Oh OK… I understand now what you mean.
There are safeguards built into Appeals in SA’s Criminal and Civil Appeal Systems…
… for instance, NO NEW EVIDENCE is led, the Appeal Court is bound to the TRANSCRIPT of proceedings and EVIDENCE already presented to Court. No new witnesses, no more new forensic evidence or new documentation.
So, a Court of Appeal can only make findings which relate to ERRORS in weighing up the evidence / applying the relevant Law and / or ERRORS in sentencing.
It is therefore not a Re-Trial… it is the re-evaluation of findings.
So, no it is not Double Jeopardy at all.
grootblousmile wrote:
It is in theory, but the ruling party appoint the constitutional court judges so they could still influence important outcomes indirectly
In the US the sitting president probably keeps his fingers crossed that one or more of the ancient Supreme Court judges croak in his term, hopefully the ones that are more conservative (or liberal) depending on the leaning of the president
Then he can appoint his judges and swing the balance in the Supreme Court to his favour
19 @ Victoriabok:
No System is flawless… that is what we live with.
@ grootblousmile:
@ grootblousmile:
for instance, no NEW EVIDENCE is led, the Appeal Court is bound to the TRANSCRIPT of what was said and asked and EVIDENCE already presented to Court. No new witnesses, no more new forensic evidence or documentation.
So, a Court of Appeal can only make findings which relate to ERRORS in weighing up the evidence and / or ERRORS in sentencing.
So if new evidence cannot be led,no new forensic evidence and no new witnesses,then the verdict
boils down to the SUBJECTIVE opinion of all involved.
SALEM much?Google if not understood.
I always laugh when I see an appeal, especially when it’s from a prominent person or political group.
The reason I laugh is simply that it’s usually preceded by the words ” we respect the court/judge/ judicial system” and then basically appeal when the finding is not in their favor which is another way of saying “the court/judge/ judicial system is full of shit/drunk/stupid and we don’t believe in it or a word the judge said”
One can almost liken it to the review system in cricket or even the intended white card in rugby….we respect the umpire/referee, but with all due respect, we think you are a klutz with eyes in your butt, so please get another person to look at the appeal/incident.
I’m not knocking getting to the right decision, I’m talking about the process of first blowing smoke up the arse of the official who got it wrong by claiming how much you respect his decision, only to, in the same breathe basically question it because you think he is a moron
21 @ ryecatcher:
No, it boils down to the re-evaluation of pertinent facts already presented both ways, then applying the legal principals and Laws which apply.
It is not OPINION and neither is it SUBJECTIVE – it is LOOKING AT THE FACTS / OR LACK THEREOF and getting to a conclusion which MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT DIFFER from the conclusion which was reached in the first instance, by properly applying principles of Applicable Law.
Salem… are you talking about the City of Salem in the States or the Witches who were burnt at the stakes hundreds of years ago, when Law was basic and undeveloped? Or are you referring to the meaning of Salem, which basically equates to “Peace”?
@ nortie:
Hi Norts.Basically they are saying that Lubbe is a moron.
Is a precedent being set by Sanzar?Nobody has asked
that question.There have certainly been other and worse incidents. Is Sanzar being selective? What period may elapse for a witch hunt(lets call it by its name.It is not a review) to be instituted.Will that protected and incompetent species,(whom I suspect initated this whole
thing )the Referees association,also have their wrong decisions reviewed(publicly).?The whole pantomine ls gives off an offensive odour,as does the obvious glee of some posters here..
Let me be frank here.I feel that what FS did was wrong.
I merely question the subsequent actions of Sanzar.
@ grootblousmile:
I allude to witch hunts.
24 @ ryecatcher:
Should an ERROR by Lubbe not be corrected then, by means of Appeal… to come to the correct findings?
Remember, whether in this Super Rugby thingy or in Court Matters, there are rules, time limits and stipulations which govern when, until when and how an Appeal is done.
See an Appeal as a “Peace of Mind that the correct decision is achieved” measure…
I do not see it as a witch hunt, I see it as “corrective measures”… for lack of a better term.
If Lubbe was wrong, let it be known… if the Refs were wrong, also let it be known… if Fransie was indeed wrong, then let that also be known.
The problem I have is that a chap like Messam gets away with a “guilty but no sanction” verdict and Fransie gets a complete discharge.
I think both the Messam & Steyn decisions of the initial Judicial Hearings are a crock of shit, to be forthright!!
24 @ ryecatcher:
Wasn’t even thinking of Lubbe or whoever was on the panel, I’m referring to the process of appealing.
In this case, and this is just my opinion, I think SANZAR are trying to show the ref that they have his back and that they think he was correct in his on field decision.
What we do know is that the judiciary panels get it wrong more than they get it right and that there are very seldom fair sanctions handed out.
One day a player might get 6 months for a bite, which, when wearing a mouth guard, might be as serious as a teething baby having a nibble.
The next day someone who potentially break another player’s neck gets nothing or one week.
To me, the whole system is ridiculous to be honest
@ nortie:
The next day someone who potentially COULD break another player’s neck gets nothing or one week.
@ grootblousmile:
@ grootblousmile:
Yea and Amen.Appalling selectivity.
nortie wrote:
And what does he get when he nibbles a player in the neck and calls him “baby” ?
Pocock’s phone number? 😛
A “firm” reprimand by Nigel Owens 😈
Users Online
Total 246 users including 0 member, 246 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,336,171 Page Impressions
_