Any player banned for life under the International Cricket Council's (ICC) anti-corruption code can still attempt to have the sanction overturned by a civil court, according to a leading British sports lawyer. Pakistan Test captain Salman Butt and pace bowlers Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif have been suspended by the ICC following an investigation into corruption allegations. The charges carry a maximum sanction of a life ban if upheld by an independent tribunal. Adam Morallee, a partner in the London law firm Mishcon de Reya, said there were still several options open to any player faced with an ICC ban. In a telephone interview with Reuters, Morallee said the first non-ICC avenue of appeal for any cricketer charged with an anti-corruption offense was the independent Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He could also attempt to appeal to a court in the country in which the alleged offence was committed, or to a court in his home country. “These governing bodies are subject to the laws of the various countries. They are just the same as any company or organization, subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else,” Morallee said. “Other entities try their best to close their world in and tell everyone only we can make decisions about us. That's just not the case.” In 1997 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) was forced to cut its four-year doping ban for first offenders in half after a series of costly legal battles in European courts which took the view that the longer ban constituted restraint of trade. Two German track and field athletes successfully applied for reinstatement halfway through four-year bans. The ICC's anti-corruption code stipulates that players must submit to the authority of the world governing body, its judicial commission and to CAS. Furthermore, it says players cannot initiate proceedings “in any court or other forum that are inconsistent with the foregoing submissions to the jurisdiction of the anti-corruption Tribunal and the CAS”. However, Morallee said in practice players could appeal to whomever they liked. “The ICC will have some very good defenses in proceedings if a player tries to challenge their decision in the courts. They will say a player has effectively signed away his life to this tribunal, and therefore is barred from bringing proceedings in another court. In effect, he has lost and he can't do anything about it,” he said. “But a national court could theoretically grant jurisdiction and then, if the punishment was grave, rule that a life ban was an unjustifiable restraint of trade, the punishment was far too harsh and, therefore, disproportionate.” Under this scenario, Morallee said, any national cricket board would be “between a rock and a hard place”. “The ICC will say he is banned from international cricket and a court will say he should be allowed to play,” he said. “It will not be easy for a national association to reconcile those differences.”
