As an Australian born Indian lawyer, I found the Proctor decision impossible to understand. He said he was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" yet all we have heard is the word of 3 Australians who say they heard it versus 2 who say it wasn't said. I'm glad that it has been clarified that Harbhajan did racially abuse Symonds in India, but that they discussed it privately and he agreed to not repeat it. So it's quite clear cut. On the disclosed facts, Proctor couldn't possibly find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unless a) he's biased, b) he only found guilt "on the balance of probabilities" (ie 4 vs 2) or c) there is other evidence.
If the BCCI wants to prove their point, they should authorise Sachin and Harbhajan to come out PUBLICLY AND EXPLICITLY confirm that the words "big monkey" never came from Harbhajan's mouth. Then let the ICC deal with the resulting ultimatum.
Some commentators said they would be interested to see what Sachin would say in a quasi-judicial environment (ie a hearing), and I'd love to know whether he chose his words carefully. There is a big difference between "I didn't hear anything said by Harbhajan" and "I can definitely confirm he did not say "big monkey".
Please note, almost every Australian worships the ground that Sachin walks on (in cricketing terms of course) - his skill, his record in Australia, and his ability to perform on the big stage.
If he verifies it publicly, most Australians would support the BCCI in the appeal!
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:06 AM Permalink
Mr Mammen, I am no attorney but unless it is beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict! That is the bare minimum for conviction.
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:25 AM Permalink
If Sachin said that Bajji would be immediately cleared of all the charges but he wouldn't. Cause he knows the truth and more than that he knows that the Australians know that he knew it.
I think it is too late anyways for Sachin to be a witness now.
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:09 AM Permalink
In other words, the defense failed to create a reasonable doublt in prosecution witness accounts (which I think is the only evidence in a word against word case).
RE:RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:01 AM Permalink
Onlooker: I read two of your comments above. First one says "unless it is beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict"; and the second one says "defense failed to create a reasonable doubt in prosecution witness accounts"..
I am somehow reading between your lines and finding that you believe in "guilty unless proven innocent" approach.
I think it should have been the other way round. Since the umpires didn't hear anything, therefore the Aussies should have been able to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" (as opposed to just create reasonable doubt) that there is something wrong with defense witness accounts.
And I can't see (I too am not a lawyer, but still) how a wicket-keeper can convince Procter that he heard something that the umpire didn't.
RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 07:33 AM Permalink
Indian, Ok, let me share my understanding.
As for public it goes "Innocent unless proven guilty". Meaning, until a verdict is given against you, you are innocent. Now that a verdict gone against you, you are guilty.
But when you go in to the courts, it works slightly differently. The prosecution have to prove that the defense is guity. But at the same time, you (as a defense) have to prove your innocence to the Judge. In this type of case, the prosecution would bring witnesses. You as a defense asking questions and trap them in them in giving conflicting accounts, you can prove your innocence. I think you can also have your witnesses (if available) who the prosecution would question. By questioning, you can easily bring the truth out or poke holes in the witness accounts and thereby you can prove your innocence.
RE:RE:RE:The Harbhajan matter (2)
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 07:36 AM Permalink
You are close. That is what the defense attorney should do. Draw the diagram of the pitch, stumps, grounds etc. make the witness locate their positions at the time of this incident. If the wicket keeper is far off than the umpire, the case is CLOSED!!! Simple.
