Michael Hooper
An appeal has been lodged against the outcome of a judicial hearing held on Wednesday 29 July and Thursday 30 July, which found Michael Hooper of Australia’s Wallabies guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (a) and issued a sanction of a 1 week suspension.
Under the SANZAR Judicial Rules, all formal judicial hearings are reviewed by an independent Appeals Review Officer. The review officer, the Honourable Graeme Mew (Canada), has examined the Hooper case and in his determination, referred it to a SANZAR Appeals Committee to review the sanction handed down by Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC.
A SANZAR Appeals Committee, chaired by Jannie Lubbe SC, with Terry Willis and Mike Heron QC as members, will hear the appeal via videoconference on Sunday 2 August 2015 at 17:00 AEST (19:00 NZ Time, 09:00 SA Time, 07:00 GMT, 04:00 ARG Time).
SANZAR will not be making any further comment until the Appeal Hearing is complete.
Let him play
This is not the first time there has been an appeal on decision at disclipinary hearing involving the Honourable Hampton. It was the first time the IRB had appealed a finding of not guilty, this was on the Lions tour of Australia two years ago when James Horwill was found to have accidentally stamped on Alun Wyn Jones head who eventually had a few stitches near the eye.
In that case the appeal delivered the same verdict as the original hearing, wonder if the same will happen in this one.
This was the Horwill incident:
Nigel Hampton QC is very experienced in his field and has achieved quite a lot as the NZ law society write up on him shows:
“Nigel Hampton QC is more than one of New Zealand’s leading barristers. As well as being a trial lawyer, he has significant judicial and quasi-judicial experience, including serving as Chief Justice of the Kingdom of Tonga.
Mr Hampton’s promise was evident while still at Canterbury University, most notably when he won the 1964 Canterbury District Law Society Gold Medal for top graduate of his year.
Next year he will celebrate 50 years since his admission on 11 February 1965. In the 49-plus years following admission, he has practised common law exclusively. In the earlier years of his practice, he had quite extensive civil, family and criminal experience. In more recent years, he has specialised in criminal work.”
and quite high level involvement in discplinary type environment:
“One of his career highpoints, however, has been his involvement in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
From 2007 to 2011, Mr Hampton was the first Disciplinary Commissioner of Counsel before the ICC….
“It was an extraordinarily interesting and novel experience to have input into the International Criminal Court setting up its disciplinary/regulatory system.
“To some extent we had something of a carte blanche in terms of drafting procedural rules and regulations for these disciplinary processes.”
Mr Hampton’s disciplinary experience goes back to his involvement in Canterbury under the Law Practitioners Act 1982, where he acted both for and against practitioners charged with disciplinary offences.
For a short time, starting in 1987, he was a member of the Canterbury District Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
In 1989, he became a member of the New Zealand Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, taking a break for two years while he was Chief Justice of the Kingdom of Tonga. He then chaired the tribunal from 2002 until 2005, remaining on as a member until the implementation of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006…
Mr Hampton was awarded an OBE for services to the law in 1988.”
I wonder what it costs SANZAR to have some one so highly regarded on their panel, then you multiply the cost by how ever many people they use for the discplinary process and all the other costs around it, travel, venues etc and it must be quite an expensive setup, all this adding to the cost of running the tournament and leaving less money to be paid to the franchises to be paid to the players etc. So it is really important that the right decisions are made at these hearings and sufficient (for lack of a better word) punsihment handed out when required…
3 @ Bullscot:
WOW!
How was Horwill found NOT GUILTY on THAT one… that was blatant!
Seems even the most hardeded Barristers can be swayed… hehehe
I see the Hooper Appeal by SANZAR as well as hte counter-appeal by the ARU were both dismissed, and the original ruling stands.
So, Hooper is free to play against the All Blacks.
So the Boks cop a 6 to 8 week suspension for similar offences.
Yet the Aussies and Kiwis get a long weekend.
Sounds about right.
5 @ grootblousmile:
Hi GBS he was ruled to have done it accidentally by Hampton QC in the original hearing which was upheld in the appeal. He (Hampton) seems to have made a big name for himself as a defence council in the courts so whether this affects things (consciously or subconsciously) I don’t know, you are far better placed to know about the possible mindset…
@ IAAS:
the sanzar law is an ass.
no question about it -too much evidence of malfeasance.
this hampton creature is simply another “get the japie” advocate.
i lost interest in this circus years ago.
@ Charo:
The get the Japie story was played out on KEO a few years back and turned out to be nothing about getting the Bokke, it’s convenient to play that card though and possibly use it as an excuse for your lack of recent success.
@ NZINCHINA:
Unfortunately it’s the old “Chip-on-the-sholder” attitude, Noodle.
Very common amongst a lot of Saffas.
And very sad too.
@ BrumbiesBoy:
Hello mate, there have been some unusual calls re suspensions etc but they have worked both ways over the years, I’m looking forward to seeing Hooper play, he’s not a dirty player and was being held back – so game on for next Saturday!
Well that was a predictable outcome.
How can anybody accuse Hampton for being a “get a Japie” advocate as there were no Japies involved in the incident or hearing except for Jannie Lubbe (SC) who upheld the decision of Hampton? It makes no sense.
@ Bullscot:
Well Bully Jock,
there is no way that was accidental.
Concerning Hooper………………………..
Well the Puma Player was dished out some rough justice on the spot.
But striking is still striking.
And standing Hooper down a Club Game, he was never going to play anyway.
………………………………… is just a complete and utter sham.
A bit like calling some of those deeds by the Springbok Trio of Eye Gougers…………………The three Bastardo’s,………. Bakkies, Bizzie and Burger……….”offenses for making contact with the eye area”.
Nama………………………………………………..come in from the cold Dude.
Users Online
Total 311 users including 0 member, 311 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,841,497 Page Impressions
_