As touched upon briefly last week, Mark Cueto, the Sale Sharks and England Wing, appeared before a Rugby Football Union (RFU) disciplinary tribunal in Liverpool on a charge of making contact with the eye region following a clash with Northampton Saints lock Christian Day. Cueto pleaded guilty to the offence and received an 18 week ban, reduced to 9 weeks following evidence in mitigation. The ban was also backdated to 2 April and ends on 4 June. Cueto, who was famously denied a try by the Television Match Official in the 2007 World Cup final, will therefore be available for England's preparations for the 2011 event, which runs from 9 September until 23 October.
The offence was considered by the panel to be "mid range" in its severity. A mid range offence would normally attract a standard 18 week ban (as was the case here); however, evidence and character references (from Martin Johnson, Rob Andrew and Sale Owner Brian Kennedy) were sufficiently persuasive for the ban to be halved. A witness statement was also considered from Day, who stated that the incident did not involve sustained pressure to the eye socket and any contact with the eye area was accidental.
Comment
In the circumstances, it is a fair punishment for the player. Eye gouging is a serious offence and carries a maximum ban of 156 weeks (or three years). The evidence clearly indicated that this incident did not fall into that category. The RFU, and indeed all rugby governing bodies, routinely take a tough stance on contact with the eyes, and rightly so. In many ways this contrasts with football, in which there has been occasion and need for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to get involved in relation to on field incidents because the public prosecutors did not feel that the Football Association (FA) had put in place proper disciplinary measures. Provided governing bodies get their disciplinary procedures right (and there is no instance of criminal injury), and apply consistent sanctions depending the severity of the offence, those matters should remain within the regulatory jurisdiction of the relevant sport.
The contents of this article are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.
