The Judicial Committee noted that the citing commissioner had described the incident in question as involving mouth of Toka Natua (New Zealand No1) [coming] into contact with the right forearm of “the Justine Lucas (England No18)”. He then went on to describe, in the citing complaint, that E18 had approached the Referee claiming that she had been bitten and referring to the statements later provided by E18. Contact with the mouth would not, of itself, be an act of foul play. However, where contact by/with the mouth took the form of biting, this would constitute an act of foul play under law 10.4(m). The Judicial Committee had to consider the case based on the available evidence in order to determine whether or not it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Player had committed the act of foul play of biting. The Judicial Committee found that the evidence available to it did not support either conclusion being more probable than the other, and so each was equally (or 50%) probable. Therefore, the Judicial Committee was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities (which would require in excess of 50% probability), that the Player had committed the act of foul play of biting and, accordingly, the citing was not upheld. Breach admitted Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) SANCTIONING PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS Assessment of Intent TDP 12.10.1(a)(i)-(ii) – Intentional/deliberate Reckless Reasons N/A Gravity of player’s actions TDP 12.10.1(a)(iii) Nature of actions TDP 12.10.1(a)(iv) – – N/A N/A Existence of provocation TDP 12.10.1(a)(v) Whether player retaliated TDP 12.10.1(a)(vi) – – N/A N/A Self-defence TDP 12.10.1(a)(vii) Effect on victim TDP 12.10.1(a)(viii) – – N/A N/A Effect on match TDP 12.10.1(a)(ix) Vulnerability of victim TDP 12.10.1(a)(x) – –
The Judicial Committee noted that the citing commissioner had described the incident in question as involving “the mouth of Toka Natua (New Zealand No1) [coming] into contact with the right forearm of Justine Lucas (England No18)”. He then went on to describe, in the citing complaint, that E18 had approached the Referee claiming that she had been bitten and referring to the statements later provided by E18. Contact with the mouth would not, of itself, be an act of foul play. However, where contact by/with the mouth took the form of biting, this would constitute an act of foul play under law 10.4(m). The Judicial Committee had to consider the case based on the available evidence in order to determine whether or not it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Player had committed the act of foul play of biting. The Judicial Committee found that the evidence available to it did not support either conclusion being more probable than the other, and so each was equally (or 50%) probable. Therefore, the Judicial Committee was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities (which would require in excess of 50% probability), that the Player had committed the act of foul play of biting and, accordingly, the citing was not upheld. Breach admitted Proven Not proven Other disposal (please state) SANCTIONING PROCESS ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUSNESS Assessment of Intent – TDP 12.10.1(a)(i)-(ii) Intentional/deliberate Reckless Reasons N/A Gravity of player’s actions – TDP 12.10.1(a)(iii) Nature of actions – TDP 12.10.1(a)(iv) N/A N/A Existence of provocation – TDP 12.10.1(a)(v) Whether player retaliated – TDP 12.10.1(a)(vi) N/A N/A Self-defence – TDP 12.10.1(a)(vii) Effect on victim – TDP 12.10.1(a)(viii) N/A N/A Effect on match – TDP 12.10.1(a)(ix) Vulnerability of victim – TDP 12.10.1(a)(x)
WRWC-2017-WORLD-CUP-FINAL-Toka-Natua-Judicial-Committee-decision-final.docx