Cricinfo - Samuels found guilty of violating ICC Code

Full Text of WICB Statement

Oh dear. I don't know any more about this case that in mentioned in the Cricinfo report, but there are a couple of concerns here. Firstly, although I accept that judges should have a right to express concern about their freedoms being eroded by the legislature (in this case by the restriction on their discretion as to sentencing), I am always a bit concerned when these expressions are attached to individual cases. In this case, everyone knew what the rules said - basically (a) don't do the crime and (b) if you do, then there is a minimum amount of time which you will have to do when found out, whatever mitigating circumstances might be presented. The committee in this case has not asked for anyone to apply clemency to Marlon Samuels, but there may well be some who will read their comments that way. That's bad, in my view, as it suggests that the committee is blurring the functions of rule-maker and rule-enforcer. I wish the enforcers had made their case for a change in the rule without reference to an individual's case for this reason.

Of more concern, in my view, though, is the fact that there is a minimum sentence at all. To be honest, I am much more in favour of judicial discretion in sentencing than I am of legislative interference in that function, and the view applies here just as it does for judges acting in criminal proceedings. Minimum sentences are, in my view, a bad thing in almost all cases - in fact, I can't think of an exception at the moment. It's tough for Samuels that his case has highlighted the issue; hopefully some good will come out of this if the ICC Board can remove the minimum sentence for future cases and grant discretion to the investigating committees.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Can't say I agree OF.

The reason the mimum sentence is there is to stop local Cricket Boards from being lenient on their own players. This is basically saying they don't trust them to apply the correct punishments. You only have to look at yet another PCB fiasco to see that in operation, both Asif and Ahktar virtually walking away scott free from their illegal drug taking case. No surprises the Pakistan Cricket Board found nothing wrong eh?

The same applies to the judiciary and mitigating circumstances and discretion are consistently abused. I read recently in the local paper a case of Chriss Tarrants ex-wife who managed to rack up more than 12 points on her license within 3 years and argued in court that she needed the car to take her son to school, yet despite the fact she was awaiting a sizeable divorce settlement claimed she could not afford taxis to take her son to and from school. What baloney, sadly the magistrates bought into it and she kept her licence DESPITE it stating quite clearly in the Highway Code Annex 1 point 5 -

"A driver or motorcyclist who accumulates 12 or more penalty points within a three year period MUST be disqualified. This will be for a minimum period of 6 months or longer if the driver or motorcyclist has previously been disqualified."
Law RTOA Sect 35

So minimums do have their place, but even then they can get waved aside by gullible Magistrates when people can afford good lawyers.

This is just one of the problems with the roads in this country - they're full of people who shouldn't be driving on them.

I doubt those views would be popular in Western Australia, where one rapist was sentenced to 4 years out of a possible 20, and another got 18 months. A man who raped and murdered a child in a public restroom two years ago is eligible for parole after 13 years. A woman who was one half of a serial-killer team was eligible for parole last year (obviously she didn't get it) and a man who massacred a family of four with a hatchet got 20 years concurrent sentencing. Two "one-punch killers" got off scot free- their defence for committing manslaughter was that they didn't think their victim would die! I think that minimum sentences are not only necessary, but in my neck of the woods should be increased quite considerably.

Anyhow, it seems that the two-year ban might turn out to be a suspended sentence, so we may see Samuels in a couple of weeks after all.

And just generally- wasn't Robert Samuels (Marlon's brother) discarded rather quickly? An average of 37 after 6 Tests (the last of which was played when he was 26) should, you'd think, hold him in good stead considering the time. I mean, considering that the competition was Sherwin Campbell, Stuart Williams and Adrian Griffith, you'd think he was pretty hard-done by!