The laws that I have read on this area of offence are not structured as relative to demonstrable intent or motive or otherwise determining the offence's validity or not; that is, they read as absolutes, either there was a stomping action risking injury or there was not. Just as in, for example, a dangerous tip tackle, the offence is to be decided on purely objective facts, was the actual tackle dangerous as technically defined, or was it not.
I suspect that the heart of this matter was the issue of the 'proven (or otherwise) intentionality and proven recklessness (or otherwise)' area of Horwill's defence.
The laws that I have read on this area of offence are not structured as relative to demonstrable intent or motive or otherwise determining the offence's validity or not; that is, they read as absolutes, either there was a stomping action risking injury or there was not. Just as in, for example, a dangerous tip tackle, the offence is to be decided on purely objective facts, was the actual tackle dangerous as technically defined, or was it not.
To be able to argue 'oh, your honour, that tip tackle was just a pure mechanical accident of balance that I executed as a technically dangerous tackle without any destructive intent, therefore I am not guilty of the offence as it was accidental' is not a valid reason to then have the offence unaffirmed. There's good reason to not permit an intentionality defence as if one was permitted for injurious offences the actual affirmation of the offence by a JO would likely prove impossibily anecdotal and subjective, and the perpetrator may well lie re motive to get off the offence, and who can easily prove the substance or otherwise of motive.
The JO ruling on Horwill exonerated him on the basis of Horwill's claim that the stomping was all wholly accidental, an unfortunate co-incidence of balancing problems and non-deliberate and uncontrollable shifting of his weight, etc. That is, there was nothing deliberate of inappropriately reckless regarding the stomping event. The JO found that he could not reject Horwill's 'no intention' defence based upon the video evidence. But I don't think he's permitted to exonerate on this basis given the letter of the law and I think the IRB found the exoneration completely flawed in terms of the actual law, and the precedent that permitting intentionality-based leniencies in serious offences would set. Hence, they have taken the serious step of appealing the whole judgement and the basis for it.
I suspect that the IRB (a) are strategically concerned that if a 'intentionality and accidental only' defence is permitted to qualify serious foul play offences (that could cause major injuries) then such laws as these could in effect be significantly watered down in their application in practice as (as mentioned above), motive and intentionality are notoriously difficult to establish as valid, and (b) are very seriously trying to eliminate offences that can potentially cause major injury and the IRB knows that to permit the intentionality and motive defences makes this far more difficult in practice and will dilute the force of the applicable law, and (c), finally, as mentioned, these particular laws themselves are not written to include dilution on the grounds of intentionality, they are absolute in definition.
I suspect that the heart of this matter was the issue of the 'proven (or otherwise) intentionality and proven recklessness (or otherwise)' area of Horwill's defence.
The laws that I have read on this area of offence are not structured as relative to demonstrable intent or motive or otherwise determining the offence's validity or not; that is, they read as absolutes, either there was a stomping action risking injury or there was not. Just as in, for example, a dangerous tip tackle, the offence is to be decided on purely objective facts, was the actual tackle dangerous as technically defined, or was it not.
To be able to argue 'oh, your honour, that tip tackle was just a pure mechanical accident of balance that I executed as a technically dangerous tackle without any destructive intent, therefore I am not guilty of the offence as it was accidental' is not a valid reason to then have the offence unaffirmed. There's good reason to not permit an intentionality defence as if one was permitted for injurious offences the actual affirmation of the offence by a JO would likely prove impossibily anecdotal and subjective, and the perpetrator may well lie re motive to get off the offence, and who can easily prove the substance or otherwise of motive.
The JO ruling on Horwill exonerated him on the basis of Horwill's claim that the stomping was all wholly accidental, an unfortunate co-incidence of balancing problems and non-deliberate and uncontrollable shifting of his weight, etc. That is, there was nothing deliberate of inappropriately reckless regarding the stomping event. The JO found that he could not reject Horwill's 'no intention' defence based upon the video evidence. But I don't think he's permitted to exonerate on this basis given the letter of the law and I think the IRB found the exoneration completely flawed in terms of the actual law, and the precedent that permitting intentionality-based leniencies in serious offences would set. Hence, they have taken the serious step of appealing the whole judgement and the basis for it.
I suspect that the IRB (a) are strategically concerned that if a 'intentionality and accidental only' defence is permitted to qualify serious foul play offences (that could cause major injuries) then such laws as these could in effect be significantly watered down in their application in practice as (as mentioned above), motive and intentionality are notoriously difficult to establish as valid, and (b) are very seriously trying to eliminate offences that can potentially cause major injury and the IRB knows that to permit the intentionality and motive defences makes this far more difficult in practice and will dilute the force of the applicable law, and (c), finally, as mentioned, these particular laws themselves are not written to include dilution on the grounds of intentionality, they are absolute in definition.
Silk or nylonWould cost a fortune to fly a Sydney silk to london to watch the 6 nations but I know some who do it.
Either - but its rayonSilk or nylon
They want to get rid of stamping from the game and have now used their new powers (since June 2012) to twice appeal a case when stamping was invovled.
This is untenable: why would they get rid of stomping but permit ball tampering to continue?
They have an agenda but its not what you think it is.