DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL OF THE
WEST INDIES CRICKET BOARD INC
IN RELATION TO A CHARGE LAID AGAINST
JASON MOHAMMED

1st August, 2015

The Disciplinary Tribunal of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) met on the 1st day of August 2015 to hear a disciplinary proceeding relating to a breach of the WICB Code of Conduct by Mr. Jason Mohammed.
Mr. Mohammed was ably represented by Ms. Simone Seedansingh of the West Indies Players’ Association (WIPA). Members of the Tribunal included Justice Adrian Saunders (Chairman), Justice Desiree Bernard, Dr. Lloyd Barnett, OJ and Ms. Verlyn Faustin (ex officio). Mr. Jeffrey Dujon was excused early in the proceedings. Mr Desmond Haynes, another member of the Tribunal, was at the time unavailable.
BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS
In April 2014 Mohammed pleaded guilty to the Level 2 offence of showing serious dissent at an umpiring decision. He was fined by the Match Referee 75% of his match fees.
In March 2015, Mohammed was charged with and pleaded guilty to dissent. Ordinarily, merely showing dissent is a Level 1 offence. The WICB took the view, however, that because the March 2015 offence occurred within a year of the previous offence of serious dissent, the March 2015 offence was automatically upgraded to a Level 3 offence and therefore, as the Code of Conduct stipulates, Mohammed’s punishment carried with it an automatic ban to be imposed by the tribunal.
It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal’s proceedings were convened.
ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
Mr. Mohammed accepted the facts giving rise to both the April 2014 and the March 2015 charges, but contended that his second offence, i.e. the one in March 2015, should not have
been upgraded from Level 1 to Level 3. He argued that the WICB’s interpretation on the issue of the escalation of the charge was wrong and that it ultimately led to the automatic imposition of a penalty that was harsh in relation to the wrong that had been committed. The matter thus fell to be decided on the interpretation of the relevant rules relating to the escalation of the charge.
However, in the course of the hearing, Ms. Seedansingh was asked whether the effect of the Rules was to escalate the sanctions for the repeated offence rather than to change the offence itself, the ingredients of which remained the same. She agreed that it was the former but said the real complaint of the Defence was that the March 2015 Charge did not so indicate and Mr. Mohammed was therefore misled in entering a guilty plea. The Tribunal said that in those circumstances he would be offered the opportunity to change his plea of Guilty to the March 2015 Charge but pointed out that the Notice of Charge of March 2015 which he had signed had clearly stated that it was a Level 1 Offence upgraded to Level 3.
THE RELEVANT RULES
The Code of Conduct grades offences according to their level of seriousness. A Level 1 offence is the least serious. A Level 3 offence of dissent attracts an automatic ban to be imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal.
As previously indicated, showing dissent is ordinarily a Level 1 offence, but a repeat offence within a 12 month period is automatically charged as a Level 2 offence and a further repetition within the same 12 month period is automatically upgraded to Level 3. There is, however, a specific Level 2 offence of showing serious dissent and that was the offence to which Mohammed had pleaded guilty in April 2014.
Mohammed submitted that his March 2015 incident was not a repeat of serious dissent and in any event he had not committed three offences within a twelve month period. He argued that his latter offence should have remained charged as a Level 1 offence and not upgraded to Level 3.
THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal took time to deliberate on the Defence submissions but ultimately did not accept them as correct. The Tribunal adopted a purposive approach to the interpretation of the Code
of Conduct’s provisions on showing dissent. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the purpose of the rule was to deter dissent and in particular repetitive dissent. Dissent within a 12 month period could be likened to a ladder with three rungs. A player may step onto the ladder at the lowest rung or, where serious dissent is shown, at the second rung. In either case, once a player finds himself on the second rung, any further instance of any dissent within a 12 month period, whether serious or otherwise, escalated the further instance to Level 3 thereby attracting a mandatory minimum ban of either 2 four day matches or 4 one day matches.
PENALTY
In light of Mohammed’s expressions of regret the Tribunal imposed the least possible penalty on him. The Tribunal imposed a ban on him of two 4 day matches. This means that Mohammed will be ineligible to represent his country for the first two 4 day matches to be played by Trinidad and Tobago in the next round of the Regional 4Day Tournament.
The Tribunal did not consider that the ban would affect Mohammed’s eligibility for selection to the senior men’s team.