Nothing like a fair justice system is there, to induce rage... Still, if the only source of evidence refuses to provide that evidence to a hearing, the ECB's hands are tied as, unfortunately, as they say, there is no evidence.
However...
The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was that he was guilty. Under other environments, while appealing a sentence (as when you are in prison) you are not allowed to return to work and live life as normal.
If this had been done under standard jurisprudence, at the "trial", cross examination of the witness would have been allowed, and therefore inconsistencies, if any, would have been raised at that point which may have changed the outcome. The ability to cross examine the only witness is therefore not an unfair request.
However, I don't agree with the disingenuous statement by the
scum lawyer.
"It will be a victory for the game of cricket when Mr Kaneria is cleared," Naseem continued. "He is a young man with a promising career ahead of him and he could be utilised by Pakistan and other teams around the world. As a legspinner, he is the master of a dying art and it is in the interest of the game of cricket that he should play."
It will not be a victory for the game of cricket. Mr Kaneria is neither a young man with a promising career ahead of him nor can he ever now be considered "safe" property again, as he will have escaped on a technicality. I wonder whether this will be included as something that the plaintiff tries to claim in his damages...?
Author
Topic: Another match fixer getting away with it? (Read 3597 times)