New Zealand Rugby Union: Disciplinary Processes

THE ‘KANGAROO Court’ was the accepted mode of discipline pre-1990 for rugby players who had offended so badly on the field of play that the presiding referee determined to send them from the field and disqualify them from further participation in the match. That offending player was then summoned to attend a ‘hearing’ before a panel often comprising persons who had ‘an interest’ in the match, but on arrival was informed that he would need to sit outside while the panel heard ‘evidence’ from the referee. Then he was requested to appear, say as little as possible, and to accept his punishment. The process was so flawed that some lawyers had Monday morning interim injunction applications ready and waiting, along with judicial review papers to challenge such tribunal suspensions for obvious breaches of natural justice. Several well known players, including the present disciplinary commissioner for the New Zealand Rugby Union, were able to continue to play rugby and participate in important representative matches because of such an approach. It is intended in this article to look, at the development of the disciplinary code from those days, to comment on some of the changes and the way in which the code has operated, and to express some ideas for improvement. In doing so it is not intended to be an all-encompassing or fully detailed description but to provide an ‘informative cameo’. In 1990, the New Zealand Rugby Union commissioned a committee to remedy the flawed situation relating to its disciplinary process and to provide its members with a code to deal with all disciplinary matters. The Black Book was born. John Dowling, a Dunedin solicitor, was the chair of the committee, whose task in formulating the rules ‘was the need to express them in plain and unambiguous and non-legalistic language’. The …