New letters reveal ‘limitations’ that led to failure of David Warner’s leadership ban-trial

The controversy around the overturn of David Warner’s lifetime leadership ban continues to take a new turn every day. The veteran Australia batter had put in an application for the overturning of his lifetime leadership ban that was put in after the ‘sandpaper scandal’. Since then Warner has gone through years of remorse and public service and wished the ban to be over.

Last week, however, the 36-year-old pulled back his application citing humiliation and media circus around his request. Now newly uncovered letters written by CA’s conduct commissioner reveal the problem behind Warner’s trial.

“Given the importance of this application, the fact it is the first of this kind, the public interest in the matter, and the publicity which has already been generated about the possible application, the Panel is of the view that this application should be conducted as transparently as possible (but consistently with giving proper regard to the wellbeing of the Player and his family) and that such transparency requires that it not be heard entirely behind closed doors,” Sullivan, a CA conduct commissioner for more than 20 years, wrote. The letters reveal that there was too much confusion as to what could be asked in front of the media and what cannot.

Confusion over questions

“That said, as already indicated, at the hearing the parties will be at liberty to make applications that particular evidence or particular parts of the hearing be conducted in private. The Panel will hear submissions at the time any such applications might be made and consider any material put forward in support. The Panel will then promptly rule on any such application. But the panel is not inclined to make any such rulings in advance of the hearing and without evidence.”

The panel, however, requested to ask questions without notice but a full agreement on the issue was not reached which led to the trial failing to reach a decision.

”The Panel will only ask questions it considers relevant bearing closely in mind the purposes, objects, text, and requirements of Article 10 and the dictates of procedural fairness,” Sullivan wrote. “Otherwise the Panel will not fetter itself in advance as to what questions it may ask. Thus the Panel is unable to agree, at this stage, to the proposed limitation, “ read Sullivan’s letter.