On 23 December 2024 James Crowley KC passed away. He was just short of his 90th birthday.

Crowley came to the Bar in 1963 and retired in 2010. Like others of his generation of barristers, he lived to see great change in the law in Queensland and Australia.  With his passing another link to those earlier times is gone.

Crowley’s career spanned the post war boom, the economic malaise of the 1970, the heady days of the 1980, the 1990s, the end of one millennia and the start of the next. But more than its historical interest, his career is an example of service to the law and the legal profession, to the collegiately of the Bar and the importance of giving back.

In 1952 Crowley graduated from that great cradle of legal minds, Gregory Terrace. He won a scholarship and enrolled in Arts/ Law at the University of Queensland. He dropped the Arts after a year and graduated with a Law degree in 1959. Law school was very different then. Classes were much smaller, so small that two of his subjects were delivered by barristers in their chambers.

 In 1957, Crowley was taught by a newly minted silk, Harry Gibbs QC (later Sir Harry Gibbs Chief Justice of the High Court). Later in his degree Crowley attended lectures given by a young Gerry Brennan (later Sir Gerard Brennan, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia). Both conducted their lectures in their chambers in the old Adelaide Street Inns of Court building (next to the Criterion Hotel).

Crowley made many friends at university, several of whom would go on to be barristers. His contemporaries were Henry Weld (later Master Weld of the Supreme Court), John Gallagher (later Gallagher QC), Bill Pincus (later Justice of the Federal Court and Court of Appeal), Jim Thomas (later Justice of the Court of Appeal) and John Greenwood (later Greenwood QC).

Ahead of him at law school were Cedric Hampson (later Hampson QC, leader of the Bar) and Noel Power (later Sir Noel Power, Vice President of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong). Behind him at Law School were Tony Fitzgerald (later President of the Court of Appeal in Qld), Tony Skoien (later Senior Judge of the District Court), John Helman (later Justice of the Supreme Court), Ian Callinan (later Justice of the High Court of Australia) and David Jackson (later Jackson QC, preeminent High Court advocate).  Crowley was popular with his class mates and a proud UQ Alumni. In 1979, he was asked to give the speech for his graduating class at their 20-year reunion.

Bowen Boy Barrister …

Crowley was obviously proud of coming to the Bar. He kept on his desk a small cut out from his home town newspaper. It read “Bowen Boy Barrister: Admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland recently in Brisbane was an erstwhile Bowen boy, James Geoffrey Crowley son of the Shire Clerk J. J. Crowley“. 

Crowley took chambers in the Scanlan Building in Queen Street (known as the ‘Outs-of-Court’). The Scanlan Building rented space to young barrister because Jim Douglas (or “Big Jim Douglas” as many called him, and later Justice of the Supreme Court) asked his good friend, businessman Ray Scanlan if he could make space available for junior members of the Bar. Ray did so. It was there that the young barrister met Ray Scanlan’s daughter Patricia, and two years later they married.

When he came to the Bar in 1963 there were 90 barristers practising in Brisbane. The annual dinner was a BBQ at someone’s house. It was a very small profession. At the time, religious sectarianism was very much part of life in Brisbane, which is part of the reason why Crowley wore his Catholicism so strongly. 

When he began, the Federal Court, Family Court and Court of Appeal did not exist. Crowley ran a trial in the High Court of Australia in front of Justice Kitto. It was a “slip and fall” in a train station. He recalled a time when the High Court judges would eat lunch in the Inns of Court during adjournments. On one occasion Justice McTiernan mentioned a relevant case he suggested Crowley might like to address the Court on after the luncheon adjournment. 

His first five years at the Bar were spent appearing in the beautiful old Supreme Court building. He wrote in Hearsay about those “good old days”.[1] Unfortunately that beautiful building was burnt down by a disgruntled litigant in 1968 and Brisbane lost a magnificent example of Italian Renaissance architecture.

Crowley recalled the succession of make-shift courts rooms between then and 1976 when the first stage of the “modern” court complex was completed. In 1981 the second stage was finished and the Supreme Court moved into its “new” building in George Street (near the site of the original Supreme Court building). Crowley must have been amongst the first silks presented in that Banco Court.

Jim Douglas featured again in Crowley’s life. Crowley was a great admirer of his and asked Douglas if he could have his chambers should Douglas be appointed. Jim Douglas, with apparently no immediate desire to become a judge, readily agreed believing (Crowley thought) that he would not have to honour the bargain anytime soon. But apparently the next appointment to the Supreme Court was Jim Douglas so Crowley secured a large set of chambers in the “boot factory” Inns of Court in Turbot Street. Years later when Crowley was the Charmain of the Bar Practice Course, he enjoyed giving out the “James Archibald Douglas” Memorial prize for the top student and he would speak fondly of Douglas Snr explaining his significance to the Bar.

In the “boot factory” Inns of Court (on the site of the current Inns), Crowley was known for his flashy cars. In the late 60’s and 1970’s Crowley had a succession of European automobiles; a black Mercedes Benz, a red Audi and a navy-blue Fiat. However, in 1979 the necessities of a large family (5 children) saw him buy a Peugeot 504 station wagon and the days of beautiful European machines was over.

He (like those of his generation) was a generalist. He was involved in reported cases in a variety of areas including Planning & Environment, General Commercial, Personal Injuries and Crime. Crowley travelled throughout Queensland and was regularly briefed by solicitors in Rockhampton and Cairns. He also had a practice in inquiries. He appeared for the Unions in two Moura Mine disaster inquiries for which the Union gave him an engraved statue thanking him for his work.

From left – Sir Jim Killen AC KCMG, Joe Crowley, James Crowley RFD KC.

His last inquiry was for a firm of engineers in the Thredbo Disaster Inquiry in the late nineties.

He was the founding editor of what was then known as “The Bar News” …

Crowley was an active member of the Bar Association. He was on the Bar Committee both as a junior and as a silk. He was the founding editor of what was then known as “The Bar News”, a glossy publication that came out four times a year containing legal updates, social events and Bar gossip. For that work he was made a life member of the Bar Association in 1989. Such publication was the immediate predecessor of the electronic Hearsay.

Crowley loved cricket and played when in practice. He was central to Bar cricket in the 1970s and 1980s very much a part of organising matches for solicitors and barristers, and championing the Qld Bar Associations annual inter-bar game “Crowley’s Clowns vs Callinan’s Clones”. I remember as a lad going out to watch these matches.

That was not the end of his work for the Association. He (as many silks do) did sundry work as it arose, such as being on the panel to approve the Bond University Law School when it was first created. He was also active in legal education. Crowley was on the Barristers Board; a body that no longer exists but was of ancient origin and ran exams for those wanting go to the Bar but who didn’t have a law degree. The Honourable Susan Kiefel AC is its most distinguished graduate.

In the 1990’s Crowley became Chair of the Bar Practice Course Management committee and was active in the running of that course. He used to regularly give the lecture on ethics and professionalism. When he stood down from that position the final dinner was renamed “The Crowley” in honour of his service, and he continued to attend to award out the James Archibald Douglas Prize on conclusion of the Course.

Crowley continued his association with QUT Legal Practice Course, delivering the Ethics and Professional Conduct lecture every year and served as a trustee of the Rod Grant and Peter Wilson Prize. It was for an essay giving the best legal solution to a set problem. 

He also moved many admissions. He became the go-to barrister for difficult admissions. His final appearance in Court was on an admission and the Chief Justice De Jersey allowed him to continue to appear on admissions after his retirement, though, he never did.  

Crowley had a penchant for practical jokes. He had fun teasing colleagues and junior barristers with “the dribble glass”. It was a lovely crystal glass where at several points just below the lip the engravings had a tiny pinhole. The effect was to produce an unintended dribble of water when drinking. He used it on everyone from, solicitors, junior barristers, senior colleagues and on one occasion, Br White, the Headmaster of Gregory Terrace.

Another prank he was particularly proud of was against a young and dynamic barrister in his chambers Cate Holmes. Holmes accepted a brief to prosecute a Malaysian Prince who had bought into the country a substantial amount of cash without declaring it. The accused retained Geoffrey Robertson QC who flew out from London for the trial. Whether it was Robertson’s eloquence or a flight of fancy of the trial judge Eric Pratt QC, the jury were invited to find that the Malaysian Prince has unintentionally brought the money into Australia. Unfortunately, intention was not an element of the offence, but the jury duly acquitted the Prince. Holmes returned to chambers at lunchtime fuming at the verdict.

… an invitation … to visit the Prince in Malaysia and stay in his palace.

Crowley and Kerry Boulton immediately contacted a local florist and ordered a very elaborate bunch of flowers delivered with a note, purportedly from the Malaysian prince. The note said how much the Prince respected Australian law and congratulated the young prosecutor on how she ran her case. It ended with an invitation for Holmes to visit the Prince in Malaysia and stay in his palace.

Crowley and Kerry Boulton watched the florist deliver the flowers to Holmes chambers. She came bursting out swearing about the Prince only to find Crowley and Boulton falling about laughing. Apparently, all she responded was “You bastards!” before returning to her room.

Crowley attained the rank of Colonel in the Australian Army Legal Corp. He had been in the Army reserve since his university days when he had joined the Queensland University Regiment where he (not entirely fondly) recalled doing guard duty in the guard house at the Governors House on Fernberg Road in Bardon.

In the Legal Corp he acted as a Judge Advocate. The most stories he told about his time in the Reserves concerned the Mess Dinners which he thoroughly enjoyed. He was not a big drinker but despite this threw himself into the dinner and “Mess Rugby” (which is full contact rugby, played in the Mess Hall after dinner. The “ball” was a frozen chicken and the game continued until the chicken completely disintegrated).

He loved the uniform but particularly the khakis. Crowley wore his khaki army shirts on his farm until they were threadbare and he still had a pair of his khaki trousers which were regularly worn until the day he died.

He had his [Supreme Court] rules leather bound.

In 1999 after Crowley had been at the Bar for 36 years and a silk for 18, the Supreme Court Rule were repealed and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules enacted. Though Crowley never said it, I think he lost a lot of enthusiasm for the law after this. He had loved the Supreme Court Rules and liked nothing more than a procedural fight in “chambers” as the Applications Court  was then called. He had his rules leather bound. All the changes noted in pen in the margin, important cases scribbled in. That book, which he took to Court, was now redundant.

In 2003 he sold his chambers in the Inns of Court. He had been one of the original shareholders and had a large impressive room looking out over south Brisbane. He had a spectacular view of Expo 88 he had some professional photos taken and framed which hung on his wall at home. But the building of Quay Central took half his view.

He had a bathroom behind a bookshelf and the cupboard folded down into a bed. But in 2003 he sold to Greg Egan (now Judge Egan). He also sold two of his three car parks downstairs in the building. I think he would have retired then but I had just come to the Bar. So he took a smaller set of chambers on Level 17 which he let me use while he rented a room on Level 7.

He finally retired in 2010 after 47 years as a barrister.

Crowley loved the Bar and its collegiately. He is remembered for his bow ties and his generosity to younger practitioners many of whom he mentored. At his funeral in January this year there was a wonderful testament to his support for young lawyers, no matter what their background.

An older couple, simply dressed, sat quietly together in the pews of St Stephen’s Cathedral. They had caught the train in from Caboolture to pay their respects to Crowley. Years before Crowley had taken their daughter under his wing, given her research work and later helped her secure a position as an associate with a Supreme Court Judge. This old couple from out of Brisbane were so grateful that Crowley had taken the time to encourage their daughter and given her a start in the law. In her condolence card, sent from New York where she now worked as a lawyer the same daughter wrote “James was such a wonderful and kind mentor to me. He really was the first person to think that I could be a lawyer and his encouragement always warmed my heart and kept me focused on my career.” This card and the old couple’s attendance at his funeral was a tribute to Crowley’s career of service to the legal profession.

[1] In the December 2007 edition “Buying Judges” https://hearsay.org.au/buying-judges/

Paper delivered to the Tri-State Bar Sports Law Conference on 21 September 2019

Introduction

This paper focuses on the cricket match played between University of Queensland (UQ) and Northern Suburbs (Norths) in the last round of the Bulls Masters 1st Grade Cricket Competition in March 2019. Norths, who were trailing by more than 600 runs, declared their innings closed at 1/14, effectively throwing the match and handing UQ the Minor Premiership. The repercussions of that decision and the response by Queensland Cricket are analysed below. 

What struck me about the case (and why I thought it was worthy of closer inspection) was that it goes to the heart of the competitive nature of sport. The question posed is this:

“Can tactical decisions which are not specifically prohibited by the rules, nonetheless breach general prescriptions against conduct that is not in the spirit of the game?”

The nature of competition is that teams do everything within the rules to win. Normally that amounts to the physical effort and the skill of their performance but sometimes also involves making the best use of the rules. This case highlights the tension between tactical decisions (‘gamesmanship’) and playing in the spirt of the game (‘sportsmanship’).

Definitions

I know that cricket is Australia’s national sport but I thought it might be worthwhile providing a reminder about some basics of the game.

International Test Cricket is played over 5 days with each team being given two opportunities to bat called “innings”. Unless both sides have completed their innings by having all their batsmen bowled out OR voluntarily declining to continue batting (called declaring) then the game is said to be a draw.

Now in Queensland club cricket no one has 5 days to devote to a game of sport so the modified version is played over two Saturdays. If the game is such that each side has their two innings, then great, BUT a victory in the 1st innings can constitute a result (i.e. the game will not be a draw merely because each side did not complete their second innings). In other words, a side can gain competition points from winning on first innings alone and further competition points in the event of an “outright” victory after the completion of the second innings.

A game of cricket is divided into 3 sessions of 30 overs each. There is a 40 minute lunch break and a 20 minute tea break in the afternoon between sessions.

As to the arrangement of the competition and the methods of selecting the finalists; I am sure you will all be familiar with competitions that, at the end of the general rounds, announce a “minor premier” for the team that accumulated most points. Then there are the semi-finals of the top four teams. The order of who plays who in the semi-finals is often determined by the final rankings of the general rounds. In the Bulls Masters 1st Grade competition the top team plays the fourth ranked team in one semi-final and the second ranked team played the third ranked team in the other semi-final.

Facts of the Case

The last round of the Bulls Masters 1st Grade Competition was played over Saturday 2nd March and Saturday 9 March 2019. The clubs involved are of long standing and have produced some of Queensland’s, and Australia’s, finest players. They have a fierce rivalry.

[I was surprised by the level of emotion I encountered in the case]

Going into the final round UQ were top of the table, with Norths 5 points behind. In this final round Valleys were playing Wests and Norths were playing UQ.  

In the North vs UQ fixture, the first Saturday (2 March) saw UQ bat all day and knock up a score a of 280 runs by stumps. On 9 March, when the second day resumed, UQ continued to bat.

During the course of that day the result of the Wests v Valleys game became known. Wests had won, putting them at the top of the table by 7 points (pending the result of North’s vs UQ game).

I digress at this point to say that a “win” was worth 12 points so, if University won against Norths, then they would have easily finished ahead of Wests on the competition ladder and would have been declared Minor Premiers. If, however, both sides did not complete their first innings and the game was drawn Norths and UQ would share 6 points each, making Wests the Minor Premiers by 1 point. That would also leave Norths as 3rd place and Valleys in 4th position.

So, if the Norths v UQ match was to end in a draw (which was beginning to look inevitable), then Norths would have to play UQ again in the semi-final (i.e. 2nd plays 3rd). 

UQ did not declare their first innings closed until the afternoon of Saturday 9 March, when they reached 9/675. This occurred in the last session of play with only 54 minutes left in the game. So that, for their to be a result Norths’ batsman had 54 minutes (24 overs) to score 676 runs, or UQ had 24 overs to bowl out Norths. The most likely outcome at this point in the game was a draw.

Norths’ opening batsmen went in.  After just 4 overs with their score at 1/14, Norths declared their 1st innings closed. This lost them the match on first innings (and effectively the game, since there was no time for second innings). It, therefore, gave 12 first innings points to UQ, making them Minor Premiers.

Norths actions resulted in the final rankings of the general rounds being:

1. UQ
2. Wests
3. Norths
4. Valleys

Thus, Norths would not face UQ the following week in the semi-finals.

Now, where is the problem with that? Without determining anything, let us consider the rational inferences available to be drawn from these events.

One rational inference available from these facts is that, since UQ had comprehensively thrashed Norths, Norths were trying to manipulate the result so that they did not play UQ in the semi-final.

It is also a rational inference to draw from the facts that UQ were manipulating the result by forcing the match to be drawn, so that they would play North’s in the semi-final.

The Reaction

Within a few days University had lodged a complaint against Norths. Wests, who were denied the Minor Premiership, also protested, as did Valley’s, who were then obliged to play the “in form” UQ in the semi-finals. Norths did not put in a complaint against UQ.

Queensland Cricket immediately launched an investigation and charged the Norths’ Captain with the following breach of the Code of Behaviour, that being:

Rule 1[b][v] Players and Officials must not indulge in conduct detrimental to the game

“Attempt to manipulate a match in regard to the result, net run rate, bonus points or otherwise. The captain of any team guilty of such conduct shall be held responsible. Prohibited conduct under this rule will include incidents where a team bats in such a way as to either adversely affect its own, or improve its opponents, bonus points, net run rate or quotient”

For this to be applicable “…bats in such a way…” must include declaring your innings over. However, I note that a separate rule (Rule 15) deals with declarations.

It is also reasonable to assume that “… bats in such a way as to adversely affect its own… bonus points, net run rate or quotient” would include batting for the entirely of the match and, therefore, forcing a draw.

Queensland Cricket also charged Norths with breach of Regulation 20 of the Qld Premier Cricket Regulations:

“20 Premier Cricket Committee Powers

[A] In the event of a breach of the regulations governing Premier Cricket Competition matches and/or in respect of any action, conduct, behaviour or decision taken, made or implemented by any Club, Player, Official or other representatives of the Club by, through or in connection with any Premier Cricket Competition match which in the opinion of the Premier Committee, constitutes conduct or action detrimental to the game or the spirit of the game, the Premier Cricket Committee may impose n a Club such a penalty as the Premier Cricket Committee considers appropriate in the circumstances.”

The reading of this section might suggest that a condition precedent is that a “…breach of the regulations…” or “…and action conduct, behavior or decision…” taken by a club official must be established before a Club can be held liable. The use of the “…and/or…” suggests that a Club could be liable without a breach being established, provided the Premier Cricket Committee was of the opinion that the action, conduct, behavior or decision of the Club, Player official or representative was detrimental to the game or detrimental to the spirit of the game.

Spirit of the Game — Sandpapergate and The Underarm Ball

As we know, judgments of courts and tribunals can be affected by the zeitgeist. These games were occurring in March of 2019, almost exactly a year after “Sandpapergate”.  In March 2018, in the third test in South Africa, Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were all found to have been involved in some way (directly or indirectly) in in the application of sandpaper to the surface of the cricket ball. Certainly these actions amounted to “conduct or action detrimental to the game or the spirit of the game” [though they were specifically charged with ball tampering]. “Sandpapergate” tarnished the game of cricket in this country.

It is understandable for Queensland Cricket to be sensitive to anything perceived to be “detrimental to the game or the spirit of the game” in the club competition.

But, against the “spirit of the game” is not easily quantifiable and its understanding is bound up in the culture of the relevant time.

In February 1981 Australian captain Greg Chappell ordered his brother Trevor to deliver an underarm bowl for the last ball of the Final of the Benson & Hedges World Series to New Zealand batsman Brian McKenchie. In doing so the Chappells denied McKenchie the ability to hit the six runs his team needed to win the game off the final ball. It was not against the rules at the time and Australia won the match.

[A clip well worth watching on Youtube, if you are procrastinating, shows McKenchie throwing his bat in frustration or disgust at the unsportsmanlike behavior of the Australians].

Though Richie Benaud described it as “one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field”, the zeitgeist being what it was, the Chappells were never charged with “bringing the game into disrepute” or conduct “detrimental to the game or the spirit of the game”.

I should note, however, that the underarm ball incident led to the rules being changed to outlaw such bowling in future.

The two examples I have given are really the two most notorious incidents in Australian cricket and, factually, are not close to the Norths vs UQ “Declaration-gate” (or “Declare-gate”). Interestingly, incidents similar to this (if they occur) are not widely reported.

There are two examples from international cricket that are similar.

Australia vs West Indies 1999 – the Go Slow

The first occurred in the 1999 cricket World Cup in England. Australia was playing West Indies in the last of the general rounds before the “Super Six” teams were chosen to play in the finals. The method of choosing the final six teams and the effect of a team’s net run rate in the general rounds was new to this competition and was changed after it (probably because of the manipulation of these rules by teams).

In the general rounds Australia had lost to New Zealand, but West Indies had beaten New Zealand. To win the match Australia need to win within 47.2 overs, which was hardly a challenge, after they had bowled the West Indians out for 110 runs. By about the 24 over mark the Australians only need 19 more runs to win, with Steve Waugh and Michael Bevan at the crease.

However, it suited Australia not only to win but to have the West Indians qualify as well. Because the rules deemed that results against opponents could be carried through to the Super Six round, Australia wanted the West Indians (who they were going to beat) to go through, as opposed to New Zealanders, who they lost to. 

If the Australians improved West Indies’ overall differential by not beating them by too much, then it would make it more difficult for New Zealand to make the Super Six. New Zealand would have to win their final match by 110-120 runs, if they batted first, or reach their total in 22 overs, if they batted second.

So, Waugh and Bevan began blocking the ball and slowing the run rate. They were booed for their efforts and crowd began walking out. The Australians tactic suited the West Indians and they played accordingly. The incident caused one observer to comment, rather crudely, about where such conduct was taking the tournament. After the game both captains were accused of colluding, which they denied, but there had hardly been a need to collude. Any decent captain would have ‘run the numbers’ and worked out what result suited their team’s chances the best. Coincidental action is not collusion.

As it was, Australia progressed to the Super Six and eventually won the tournament, comfortably beating Pakistan in the final. New Zealand also qualified for the Super Six, despite the best efforts of Australia and West Indies. They were lucky enough to face International cricketing minnows, Scotland, in their final game. New Zealand batted second and had to score 122 runs in 21.2 overs. They did so comfortably, finishing on 4/123 after 17.5 overs. They eventually made the semi finals.

This is a clear example of the Australian cricket team batting “…in such a way as to … improve its opponent’s bonus points, net run rate or quotient”. Winning the match easily was well within Australia’s grasp, but they chose to limp over the line to help the West India chances or, more accurately, to hurt New Zealand’s chances.

This example is similar to the actions of UQ in the match against Norths. They batted for almost two full days, making a draw almost inevitable. What motivated UQ is a matter of speculation, but one rational inference to draw from the facts is that they were forcing a draw and sacrificing the Minor Premiership to improve their chances of winning the Premiership.

South Africa vs England- declaring to get a result

The second example occurred in the fifth test of the five test series between South Africa and England (in South Africa) in 2000. The fifth test was a dead rubber as South Africa having already won the series, which might go some way to explaining what happened.

At the end of the first day’s play South Africa were 6/155. The South African captain made a deal with the English captain that, if South Africa reached 250, they would declare their innings ended. Then England would declare their first innings at 0/0 and South Africa would forfeit their second innings, leaving England one innings to make 251.

The effect of this was arrangement was to turn a two innings match into a one innings match, making it more likely there would be a result. In the previous four games of the series, two games had been drawn. So it was a decision of both captains taken to improve the chances of getting a result.  Which (one assumes) is good for the fans and the TV ratings.

In the end, the English reached 251 with 2 wickets to spare (8/251).

I have deliberately NOT named the captains involved, because I wanted you to assess the story on its face, in terms of the tactical decisions made. However, it is relevant to note that the South African captain at the time was Hansie Cronje (later disgraced over colluding with bookmakers to fix matches). It turned out Cronje had been approached by a sports gambler who, as the Commission of Inquiry into Cricket Match Fixing and Related Matters observed, had “planted the idea [to make sure that the match was not drawn] with [Cronje]” to facilitate successful betting on the game.

There is no suggestion that the captain of England had any knowledge of Cronje’s motivation, or the source of the idea, that lead to the agreement by the captains.

This is a clear example of a tactical declaration used for the purpose of forcing a result (or making a result in the match far more likely). As such, the declaration by England is akin to the actions of Norths. Norths’ motivations are not public, but one rational inference to draw from the facts is that Norths were forcing a result to improve their chances in the semi-finals.

Tactical declaration in English County cricket

There is another example from English county cricket, which is, in some way, more similar to the Norths vs UQ match. It occurred in August of 2017, during the Pembroke County Cricket competition, in the last match of the season between Carew Cricket Club and Cresselly Cricket Club (I assume that this competition does not play finals, but is merely a first-past-the-post competition).

Carew was at the top of the ladder, with Cresslley close behind. However, to win the championship Cresslley needed, not just to beat Carew, but to score bonus points, which, it seems, they would do if they scored more then forty runs and took more than one wicket.

But, in any event, the Carew team were far enough ahead on points that they could lose the game and still win the competition, provided they didn’t concede any bonus points to Cresslley. So the Carew team could either play to win, which would have given Cresslley the opportunity of beating them (with bonus points) OR loose in such a way as to deny Cresslley any bonus points and, thus, guarantee Carew a one point victory in the competition. Carew chose the safe option. They declared their 1st (and only) innings at 1/18, thereby handing Cresslley an easy win, but denying them the opportunity of getting a bonus point (i.e. more then one wicket or scoring more than forty runs).

Though I found nothing to say Carew had broken the rules, they were (a bit like Greg Chappell) subject to much criticism for their actions. A former English player took to Twitter saying it was “not in the spirit of the game”. A photo of the team on Twitter attracted similar criticism.

A special committee was established to inquiry into the actions of the Carew team and, though I did not see what they were charged with, the Carew team was relegated, as punishment for their actions. It seems an ironic punishment, considering that they had just won their division.Presumably, they would clean up in the lower division. Two premiership trophies for the price of one!

That case bears some similarities to the UQ vs North cricket match, in that both Norths and Carew deliberately lost the match through their use of a declaration. Though that is where the similarities end, because Norths was put in a position where, with only 54 minutes to bat, there was no way they could have won, whereas Carew batted first and, effectively, threw the game as result of their declaration.

Wash up of the Norths Vs UQ match

So what happened regarding the complaints against Norths?

Well, one unusual feature was that the semi-finals were due to start the following weekend (Saturday16 March 2019). As a result, the usual disputes/complainants process had to be curtailed.

Rule 19 of the Qld Premier Cricket Regulations provides that complainants must be made within 7 days of the incident.

Rule 19 also provides that the Premier Cricket Committee (which affords procedural fairness and natural justice) will adjudicate on a dispute only after “all Clubs concerned have been notified” and all Clubs concerned “have had the opportunity of making written representations thereon”

So, this process had to take place in less than a week.

• UQ made their complaint/protest on Monday 11 March 2019 as did Valleys and Wests
• The Umpires provided a match report on the same day
• Norths were informed of the complaints/protests on 11 March 2019.
• Norths’ Captain was interviewed as part of the Qld Cricket investigation on Tuesday 12 March, at 6.30pm.
• There was also a meeting of the Premier Cricket Committee (“PCC”) on 12 March 2019 where they were to determine questions regarding a Breach of Regulation 20 by the Club (that meeting took place at 7.30pm).
• Norths’ captain was formally charged on Wednesday, 13 March and faced a disciplinary hearing some 3 hours later, on the very same day.

Decision

On Tuesday 12 March 2019 it was unanimously agreed by the Committee that the action of Norths, in declaring their first innings closed at 1/14, constituted “conduct or action detrimental to the game or the spirit of the game” and a breach of Regulation 20. It is noteworthy, however, that the Club was found in breach of Regulation 20 before the captain was found to have breached the code of conduct. Therefore, the PCC had determined that the captains “action, conduct, behaviour or decision” was  “detrimental to the game or the spirit of the game” before the captain’s disciplinary hearing.

The PCC imposed the following sanctions:

• All competition points for the match were revoked “due to the result being contrived”
• As there was no evidence of collusion and they did not lose the match, University of Queensland were to have 5 points.
• No competition points were to be awarded to Norths for losing the match.
• There was to be a deduction of 12 competition points from Norths for the 2019/2020 1st Grade Competition.
• There was to be revocation of Norths’ hosting privileges for the 2019/2020 1st Grade Competition. The ultimate effect of this sanction was that, in the event Norths was to secure a home final, the match would be played at the opposition’s venue and be declared an away match for Norths.

The effect of the decision altered the final rankings, which were finally fixed as:

1. Wests
2. UQ
3. Norths
4. Valleys

The Norths’ captain was banned from the entire finals series after he was found to have contravened Rule 1(b)(v) of the Code. The Norths’ captain did not elect to appeal either the breach itself or the punishment imposed.

As noted above, Wests were now the Minor Premiers, with UQ second.

The semi-finals went ahead on Saturday 16 March 2019. 1 played 4  (Wests vs. Valleys) and 2 played 3 (UQ vs. North’s)

UQ again demolished Norths and Wests beat Valleys. So the Minor Premiers Wests played “second placed” UQ in the Final, which UQ won convincingly.

[So sad that UQ weren’t also the minor premiers, but I suppose you can’t have everything, especially if you declare at 9 for 675 just 54 minutes before stumps on the last day of the final, “all deciding” round of the regular season]

Post Script

North’s appealed the sanctions of the PCC successfully, however, their appeal hearing did not take place until some 4 months after the initial PCC hearing. The Appeals Tribunal found that the PCC had not afforded Norths procedural fairness and had denied Norths natural justice. Notwithstanding these findings, the Appeals Tribunal felt that the declaration was sufficiently serious that a sanction of some form had to be implemented. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the sanctions of the PCC, and deducted only 5 points from Norths for the 2019/2020 1st Grade Competition.

Interestingly, the PCC in their Minutes had stated that the purpose of sanctioning Norths was to “[p]unish the 11 players that took to the field on the day the declaration was made and not to punish the club as a whole”. However, the nature of club cricket is such that the 1st Grade team from one season to another differs markedly. So, in essence, a player who played 2nd grade cricket for Norths during the 2018/2019 season, but had worked his way up to the Norths 1st Grade team for the 2019/2020 season, would be sanctioned. Norths were unsuccessful in arguing this point at their Appeals Hearing.

Another interesting legal issue arising out of this case was that the regulation which the Norths’ Captain was found to have contravened states that in the event of a breach, “…the captain shall be held solely responsible…”. The rule, and the subsequent sanction imposed on the Norths’ captain appear, prima facie, to be inconsistent with the sanctions imposed on the club as a whole.

In late August 2019, Queensland Cricket introduced a new rule (or added to an old rule)

Law 15 DECLARATION AND FORFEITURE

Law 15 shall apply subject to the following:

[A] No team shall be permitted to forfeit its first innings

[B] No team shall be permitted to declare its first innings closed until it has avoided the appropriate follow-on total (see General Playing Condition 14.1)

So now, such a tactical declaration is expressly prohibited in Queensland Club Cricket (This rule was already in both the NSW and VIC grade cricket rulebooks prior to QLD implementing it).

Conclusion

I can’t help wondering whether, if this had occurred in the 1980s, 1990s or early 2000s, any disciplinary action at all would have been taken by Queensland Cricket. I wonder also the extent to which “bringing the game into disrepute” or “not in the spirit of the game” type rules will be prosecuted more often in the future. It is a difficult area to prosecute, because it goes directly to the competitive nature of sports. People who play competitive sport do so it win. The fact that winning might involve a manipulation of the rules in a way that is unexpected is “the nature of the beast”. But is it really that unexpected?

There is a term “gamesmanship”, meaning the use of methods, especially in a sports contest, that may be dubious or seemingly improper, but not strictly illegal. When does “gamesmanship” become unsporting?The term “gamesmanship” was invented for exactly this type of scenario: for Greg Chappell’s underarm ball; for Carew’s tactical declaration at 1/18 against Cresselly;  and for Norths declaration against UQ, or even for UQ’s decision to bat for two days and force a draw.

So to prosecute teams for displaying “gamesmanship” is something that should not be done lightly. Teams are encouraged to play “within the rules”, but they are also encouraged to win. I accept it can sometimes be a grey area, but all the more reason for sporting regulatory bodies to tread lightly.