RFU to take no further action in Harlequins case

Further allegations of misconduct against Harlequins RFC and certain individuals

Following ERC's decision to take no further action against Harlequins or any of its staff or members, I have considered whether there are any other matters beyond those which ERC have already ruled on which merit further investigation and possible sanction. In particular I have considered whether any of Harlequins senior officials (other than those already sanctioned):

• knew that fake blood had been used in the match against Leinster on 12 April and/or participated in the subsequent cover up before the initial hearing;

• attempted to interfere with or deceive the ERC disciplinary process;

• pressurised Tom Williams into either lying or hiding the truth from ERC; or

• undertook any other conduct which was prejudicial to the interests of the Rugby Football Union of the Game.

I have decided that there would be no merit in further investigation and there is insufficient evidence so support a case of misconduct by the Club or any of its senior officials which has not already been considered by ERC. There will, therefore, be no further misconduct proceedings against Harlequins or any of its senior officials in relation to the use of fake blood, or any related activities up to the final ERC Appeal hearing. As far as the RFU is concerned the matter is now closed.

I have taken this decision because:

• there is no evidence that anyone senior within the club, other than those already sanctioned, knew about the cheating on 12 April or the subsequent cover up;

• there is no evidence that anyone within the club, other than those already sanctioned, attempted to interfere with or deceive the ERC disciplinary process;

• there is no evidence that there was any attempt to induce Tom Williams to lie to ERC;

• when the evidence is considered as a whole and all the various written and oral communications put into context, it is clear that any actions by Harlequins which could be classified as misconduct were not sufficiently serious to merit further significant sanction;

• Harlequins have been sufficiently punished for their misconduct; and

• there has been considerable and damaging media speculation about this case and further investigation would take considerable time during which that would continue. In my judgement such further delay and speculation would cause increasing damage to the image and reputation of the game in England and elsewhere which would be disproportionate to any advantage gained by instituting disciplinary proceedings. In short it is not in the interests of the Rugby Football Union or the Game to proceed any further.

My full reasons for this decision are given below.

My investigation

1. I have read the following documents provided to me by ERC and Harlequins:

• The judgments of the first instance and appeal hearings (including the affidavit provided by Tom Williams)

• The transcript of a meeting between Roger O'Connor, Max Duthie (ERC) and Tom Williams and Owen Eastwood (legal representative) on Wednesday 13 August 2009

• Transcripts of telephone messages between various parties to the proceedings

• Copies of letters and e mails between parties

• Various other documents prepared by ERC in advance of the Appeal Hearing

2. I have also interviewed Tom Williams, Owen Eastwood (solicitor representing Williams), Damian Hopley (PRA), Mark Evans (CEO Harlequins) and Oliver Glasgow (counsel representing Harlequins). I have previously spoken to Charles Jillings.

Narrative

3. The following narrative has been compiled from the documents provided by ERC and evidence from those I interviewed. Before publication of this statement those parties were given the option to amend the narrative. The following is an agreed version of events.

4. Before the first hearing started in early July there is no evidence that Mark Evans or any of the Board at Harlequins knew what had actually occurred. The lawyers acting for the club had clear instructions that the "blood injury" had not been faked and that the allegations were not true. Those instructions never changed. Evans himself accepts that he should have paid closer attention, perhaps by conducting an internal investigation, but he accepted the version of events which Dean Richards said he would put before the initial hearing. There has been some speculation that he is the sort of "hands-on" CEO who must have known, and that this speculation is corroborated by Tom Williams affidavit in which he described a conversation with Evans in the week leading up to the original hearing where Williams said: "by the way he said [that he had read the statements] I took it to mean that he did not want to discuss the details with me. I did not know whether Mark was aware of what had taken place regarding the fake blood at this stage." Both Williams and Evans told me that this was a very short conversation en passant which had no significance. I accept that this speculation has no basis in fact and that Evans did not know what had occurred.

5. During this period Dean Richards told Williams that he would support an appeal. On 22 July he left a voice mail on Williams' phone telling him that he could arrange for someone to coach him on giving evidence. On 3 August he left a message apologising for what had happened. Williams said that the press reports of Richards being a bully were widely exaggerated - he had a robust style of management and made all of the rugby decisions in the club. Williams did not have a particularly close relationship with him and lost respect for him through this process.

6. Evans said that he became increasingly concerned during the initial hearing as the evidence unfolded. He said that it did not sound entirely credible. Media commentary, his own reflections and the immediate reaction to the announcement of the first hearing's findings increased his concerns over the next few days. At the end of the hearing he told Williams that the club would support his appeal (a further indication that he had not known before the hearing about the fabrication).

20 July
7. The final date of the initial hearing at which Williams was suspended for 12 months.

21 July
8. On the day after the initial hearing Richards tendered his resignation to Evans. He did not admit the fabrication but suggested he had to go because he had ultimate responsibility for what had occurred. On the same day Williams contacted Damian Hopley (PRA) to set up a meeting.

23 July
9. Williams met Hopley and Mr Eastwood and when Williams disclosed the full facts he received unequivocal advice to "tell the truth". As a result of this meeting, Williams instructed Mr Eastwood to act on his behalf and Mr Eastwood subsequently (exact date not agreed, but between 24 and 28 July)) contacted Max Duthie (ERC) to inform him, without prejudice, that Williams was considering an appeal by telling the truth about the original fabrication and subsequent events, and asking whether Mr Duthie would support his appeal for a significantly reduced sanction, based on the legal principle of "substantial assistance".

29 July
10. Hopley contacted Evans to set up a meeting, but they were unable to meet until 29 July for personal (holiday) reasons. On that date Hopley, Mr Eastwood and Evans met and Evans was informed of the fabrication and subsequent cover up. Evans said that this disclosure of the full facts surrounding the fake blood substitution and subsequent cover up was the first time that any of the senior officials at the club had been told what had happened. I am satisfied that this was the first time that Evans knew for certain what actually happened on 12 April and subsequently. At the meeting Mr Eastwood suggested that Williams had two options (described as "a binary decision") either to appeal and tell the appeal panel the complete truth or not to appeal. Evans suggested that there was a third option to appeal on the limited basis of papers only against the severity of sanction. Evans said that from this point onwards he felt that Richards' position at the club was no longer tenable.

31 July
11. Two days later Hopley, Williams and Evans met at the Café Nero in Twickenham. At that meeting Evans again suggested that there was a third option for Williams, that being an appeal on the papers against severity of sanction. There was no discussion of compensation at this meeting and the three attendees told me that this meeting was to explore options. Evans brought with him a draft e mail relating to the resignation of Richards which he briefly mentioned to Hopley and Williams, but it had no real significance in relation to their discussions. Williams believed that Richards should resign. Following this meeting Evans spoke to Mr Glasgow and advised him of the change to Williams' account. This was the first time that any of the lawyers acting for the club were privy to this information.

3 August
12. Richards met with Evans and told him the full extent of the fabrication and subsequent cover up (which Evans already knew). Subsequently (see 6 August entry below) the Harlequins Board decided that Richards should not resign until the written decision of the initial hearing was published, although Evans himself argued that Richards should resign.

13. Between 31 July and 5 August Williams continued to train at the club and had a number of meetings with his lawyer. He felt increasingly stressed by the situation and became quite ill. The club management, his legal adviser, PRA and his colleagues became more and more worried about his emotional wellbeing. He was completely undecided as to whether to appeal or not for much of the period, was worried about the future and, at his lowest thought he should retire from the game. During this period he lost 7 to 8 kg in weight and, he said, felt worse than he had ever felt in his life (even when suffering from food poisoning). However, on 4 August Williams reaffirmed that he wished to appeal on a full disclosure basis and Mr Eastwood informed Evans of this.

5 August
14. There were two separate meetings which occurred almost simultaneously in the PRA offices. Mr Eastwood met with Evans and Mr Glasgow while Charles Jillings met with Williams and Hopley. Evans meeting with Mr Eastwood covered the same ground as before - that being to discuss options for Williams appeal. There was no mention of compensation. Mr Eastwood disagreed that the limited appeal option was realistic explaining that in his view the appeal panel would inevitably require Williams to attend a personal hearing and answer questions about what had occurred. Evans said that if the full facts were exposed to the appeal panel and the club was expelled from ERC next season the financial damage to the club would be significant. Evans never suggested that Williams should lie and he received legal advice that it was not improper to discuss all possible options with Williams' representatives. The advice also suggested that once Williams decided to appeal no further discussions of that nature should take place. Mr Eastwood said, and Evans agreed, that Evans was quite animated and at times forceful in this meeting, but he said that Evans was not trying to intimidate Williams.

15. In the other meeting Hopley made it clear at the outset that Williams intended to appeal and make a full disclosure of all the events relating to the cover up. Jillings agreed that he should appeal but suggested that he should consider the other option of a limited appeal on the papers. Williams said that he felt under some emotional pressure during this meeting because he was aware of the potential ramifications for other people at Harlequins, not least the physiotherapist and doctor who had been involved on 12 April. However, he did not deviate from his decision. Jillings also accepted that the club had effectively breached Williams' contract of employment by asking him to fake an injury and then subsequently lie. He told Williams that the club would compensate him for having put him in that position and outlined items that a compensation package could include (including an extended player contract and employment beyond the end of his playing career).

16. Club officials from Harlequins assert that this offer of compensation was not connected to Williams' decision to appeal. They are clear on that point: Evans said that Jillings was adamant about that when discussing the issue with the Board. Mr Eastwood said that it was perceived that the offer of compensation and the limited appeal option were linked, but this was never expressly stated. Williams now accepts that Jillings did not intend to link them and that Jillings acted entirely properly. Jillings accepted in his open resignation letter that the link may have been perceived when he said: "With hindsight my judgement can be called into question by the proximity of my suggestion of limited disclosure by Tom Williams on the one hand and a financial package proposal on the other." The parties all now agree that there was no link between compensation and the type of appeal.

6 August
17. Richards formally offered Evans his resignation. Evans believed that it should be announced immediately and he rang all Board members. Some of them asked the announcement to be delayed so that they had a chance to be fully briefed and give the matter due consideration.

18. Evans telephoned Williams and left a message asking him meet to clarify the situation and apologising for what had occurred. During the morning some senior players at Harlequins approached Evans on the training ground to find out what was happening to Williams. They expressed concern about his state of health. Evans told them in broad terms what was happening and the options in relation to an appeal. He expressed concern that Williams was distancing himself from the club and asked them to see if they could get him to speak to someone.

19. Later that day seven of the players met Williams in a pub in central London. Williams said that they were very supportive and did not, as has been inferred in some press reports, apply any pressure on him. He said that at this time he was reconsidering and had genuinely not decided whether or not to appeal - the players all said they would support him whatever his decision, but they also said if it were them then they would appeal on the papers against sanction only.

20. Williams said, and Mr Eastwood confirmed, that this meeting, more than any other, affected Williams. He said he was fully aware of the potential difficulties for the club, particularly the possibility of being expelled from ERC, and he understood that the players did not want this to happen. However, he is adamant that they did not apply any undue pressure.

21. That evening Williams' agent telephoned him and suggested that it would be best for him, given his state of health, not to put himself through a full appeal hearing. Evans had spoken to the agent to try to open up channels of communication between the club and Williams because they were rapidly breaking down However, Evans said he had not asked his agent to intervene and Williams confirmed that this was the case. This communication further increased the pressure felt by Williams.

7 August
22. By now Williams and Mr Eastwood had discussed the possibility that Williams might leave the club and sue for constructive dismissal. Having discussed his options with his girlfriend and family members Williams instructed Mr Eastwood to make a counter offer to Mr Jillings oral offer of 5 August. Mr Eastwood sent an e mail at 1055 to Evans in which he stated that the option of "a clean written appeal" was unrealistic. He said that Williams had "a binary" decision to make - he either appeals on the basis that he is prepared to answer any questions put to him or he reconciles himself to missing the season. He said that Williams was prepared to sacrifice his appeal on the basis of 12 conditions relating to an apology, security of tenure, payment of legal fees, increases in salary and a net compensation payment of £390k. This was not open to negotiation and he required an agreement by 1700, the time Williams had set himself as the deadline for an appeal, although the actual deadline was 1225 on 8 August.

23. Mr Eastwood said that he considered the ethics of this offer very carefully. He said that the club accepted that they had breached Williams' employment contract and had made a compensation proposal. This letter was a response both to that offer of compensation and the club's stated preference that he did not appeal on a full disclosure basis. Williams was under no obligation to appeal and was not asking for compensation to tell lies or fabricate evidence. Mr Eastwood expressly stated in his letter that Williams would not lie again.. Williams said that in retrospect he regrets instructing Mr Eastwood to send this letter, but he was in a highly anxious state and confused as to how best to proceed in light of the conflicting advice he was receiving.

24. Later that day Stephen Hornsby, Harlequins solicitor, replied by e mail saying that the club "cannot make payments to [Williams] that are conditional on him not exercising his legal rights. The exorbitant level of payments you outlined in your e mail would be equivalent to buying his silence and this is something the Board cannot countenance. The club continues to believe very strongly that Tom should appeal against the severity of his sanction.....Having said that the club accepts that through its servants or agents it has damaged Tom and we share you legal analysis. In the circumstances the club believes that it is not only appropriate but necessary to make some proportionate compensation payments to Tom and undertake some further steps."

25. Evans said that Harlequins Board discussed this matter and Jillings was absolutely adamant that there could be no compensation, however large or small, in exchange for no appeal. By this stage he, Evans, was of the opinion that a full appeal was the only appropriate way forward.

26. The club made proposals in relation to salary, payment of legal fees and security of tenure and concluded:

"For the avoidance of doubt if Tom accepts it then he is entirely free to make an appeal in any form he wishes based on the considered advice of your firm. The club would only ask that it be given a copy of any appeal several hours before ERC receives it."

27. At about 1830 Mr Duthie sent an e mail to Mr Eastwood stating that ERC was considering an appeal in relation to Richards, Brennan and Dr Chapman and asked Williams to provide answers to questions about events on 12 April. It required answers by 2000 and reminded Williams that failure or refusal to provide assistance to ERC would constitute misconduct under ERC's Disciplinary Rules. As a result of this communication Williams went to meet members of Harlequins Board at a private residence. He was accompanied by his girlfriend and met Roger Looker (his residence), Charles Jillings, Colin Herridge, Mark Evans and Will Skinner. Mr Glasgow was at the residence but left the room before the meeting started and took no part in the discussion that ensued. Williams said that he was in a complete quandary as to what to do and the discussion again went round and round in circles. Finally after about two hours he resolved that he would appeal on a full disclosure basis.

8 August
28. Jillings telephoned Williams to inform him that Richards would resign and the club would support him in disclosing everything. Later he left a further voice mail message suggesting that there might be a "cleaner route". Evans said that this meant that Harlequins was prepared to approach ERC to disclose everything so as to protect Williams from the further emotional pressure of attending a further hearing and being subject to robust questioning.

29. The club issued a press release accepting the verdicts and sanctions of the initial hearing and announcing Richards' resignation. At about the same time Williams and ERC both issued notices of appeal.

12 August
30. A meeting was arranged with ERC and on 12 August. Williams, accompanied by Mr Eastwood, was interviewed at length by Mr Duthie and Roger O'Connor. Another solicitor from Mr Duthie's firm was also in attendance. This was a long interview which provided ERC with the evidence against Richards, Brennan and Dr Chapman. Williams was asked about all aspects of the case including whether he had been pressurised into not appealing by officials from the club. He, on advice from Mr Eastwood, declined to answer some of those questions on the basis that discussions and correspondence with Harlequins were privileged because they related to breach of contract and potential constructive dismissal. Subsequently Williams prepared an affidavit for the appeal hearing in which ERC required him to include details of his discussions with club officials in advance of him submitting his notice of appeal. He has been concerned that some of the parts of that evidence have been taken out of context in the media.

17 August
31. The appeal hearing took place.

Conclusions from the evidence

32. It is clear that senior officials of Harlequins were very concerned that the club might be expelled from ERC competition if the full facts relating to the fake blood and subsequent cover up were exposed to an ERC appeal panel. They believed that the best interests of the club would be served by Williams appealing on a limited papers basis and without a hearing against the severity of sanction. Their concern related both to the financial effects on the club, which they estimated to be extremely damaging, and to the professional integrity of Mr Brennan (physiotherapist) and Dr Chapman (doctor).

33. It is also clear that Williams was very upset that he had lied to the initial hearing, felt let down by the club and, as time progressed, felt increasingly stressed to the extent that he became ill. Pressure came from his own conscience that he knew he had acted out of character, from his worry about the effect on the club and peoples' employment if he appealed and latterly from ERC in the form of an e mail from Mr Duthie. In retrospect he is extremely apologetic for his part in this affair.

34. Williams has admitted lying to the initial hearing and was prepared to consider not appealing so that the truth would remain suppressed. Although this raised questions about his credibility - and certainly that would be an issue if he were to give evidence in a hearing on this matter - I found him to be open and honest with me. He is ashamed of his actions, which were out of character, and has learned a hard lesson.

35. Evans has admitted that he should have paid closer attention to the process when the complaint was first made and that once his suspicions were aroused he should have conducted a rigorous review and reported the results to ERC. Harlequins Board have criticised Evans for these failures and he accepts that criticism. However the Board have also passed a vote of confidence in Evans to continue as their CEO.

36. The communication between club officials and Williams was undertaken with lawyers or CEO PRA in attendance. The club certainly wanted Williams to limit the extent of his appeal, and they asked him on a number of occasions to consider that option. However, after a number of days of negotiation the club agreed that an appeal on the full facts was appropriate. All of the negotiations in relation to compensation were undertaken through lawyers and was not expressly linked to Williams appeal even though Williams and Mr Eastwood thought there was a link during the negotiations. The letter from Mr Hornsby to Mr Eastwood on 7 August made this point explicitly.

Decision on whether to bring proceedings

37. I have to consider whether any of the conduct described above is prejudicial to the interests of the Union and the Game, and if it is whether it is sufficiently serious to merit disciplinary proceedings.

38. This whole affair has been particularly unedifying and there is no doubt that the whole episode has brought the game into disrepute. Once Evans discovered the full facts of what occurred on 29 July Harlequins should have taken immediate action against Richards and informed ERC and the RFU. Instead it took them nine days to reach that correct decision. This delay was fuelled to a certain extent by Williams' prevarication about whether or not to appeal.

39. These negotiations and the ensuing delay could be classified as prejudicial conduct but in the context of the whole affair they are relatively minor because Williams and the club made the right decision in the end.

40. Mr Jillings, in his resignation statement, accepted responsibility for his club's failings and acted honourably and with integrity in taking that responsibility. Further disciplinary action against him for his part in the negotiations, when set against the sanction on the club and his resignation, would be oppressive.

41. Mr Williams has suffered enough already in terms of damage to his health and reputation. Further action against him for asking the club to pay a large sum as compensation for not appealing the original sanction would also be oppressive. He said, and I accept, that this offer was made when he was not acting entirely rationally and he now regrets it.

42. Mr Evans believes that he acted in the best interests of all the employees in the club and was desperate to limit the damage to them and the club. He never threatened Williams but he did ask him on a number of occasions to consider limiting his appeal. He can be criticised for not disclosing the facts to ERC and the RFU as soon as they came to his attention and this was an error of judgement. However, bringing disciplinary proceedings against him for this conduct, particularly when set against the sanction imposed on the club, would also be oppressive.

43. The club has already lost its Director of Rugby to a three-year suspension and Chairman who has resigned. Additionally they have been fined 300,000 Euros and have yet to pay the full costs of the hearing (likely to be several hundred thousand Euros). The reputation of the club has also been tarnished. That seems to me to be a proportionate sanction for all that has occurred.

Final Comments

44. I make no criticism of the lawyers involved in this case or of the role of PRA. There was no obligation on Williams to appeal and it was perfectly proper for his and Harlequins' legal adviser to enter negotiations in relation to breach of contract following the initial hearing. Similarly the CEO of PRA's consistent advice to Williams was that he should appeal on a full facts basis and he provided pastoral support for Williams when he needed it.

45. There will be some in the Game who will consider that further action should be taken against Harlequins and senior officials and that my decision has undermined the integrity of the sport. I disagree. This whole saga has lasted for far too long already and a line needs to be drawn so that reputations and the image of the Game may be restored. I have no doubt that everyone involved now understands the importance of telling the truth at the earliest possible opportunity and that in itself will send a powerful message to the rest of the Game.

46. Finally I would like to thank ERC for their determination in seeking out the truth and exposing issues which can now be taken forward in other fora.

HHJ Jeff Blackett
RFU Disciplinary Officer
11 September 2009