Paul Lunt, Michael Vaughan’s solicitor, takes the stand.
He is the final witness to be called. There’s a short chat, where Lunt is asked a few questions about how he obtained Liz Neto’s witness statement. He says Michael Vaughan gave it to him, but doesn’t know how he obtained it. He also confirms he interacted with the journalist George Dobell but a long time ago. However, the exchanges appear largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
And that, I think, is it for today in terms of the public hearing.
Liz Neto, the former Yorkshire HR manager takes the stand.
As she does so, journalists are given a copy of her nine-page witness statement. All bar two paragraphs are redacted.
What we can see is the following: “When the media furore was at its zenith, Mr Rashid phoned me on more than one occasion. He appeared distressed and indicated to me he was being pressured to corroborate allegations of racism then being made, even though he did not want me. He said to me, more than once, that he could not remember the particular comment he was being asked to say he witnessed, not anything racist being said in his presence.”
“Mr Rashid’s voluntary comments to me during telephone calls he chose to make to me are at odds with claims I have seen subsequently in the media, attributed to him, concerning racist comments observed or overheard.”
Under cross-examination by Jane Mulcahy, Neto is asked whether she really never saw any racism in Yorkshire cricket. “As far as I was aware,” she replies. “No one ever raised it with me.”
Do you accept now that from the admissions, that even though you were not present, racist language was routinely used? “I accept it was used given Mr Ballance and Mr Hoggard’s admissions, but not routinely used,” replies Neto.
Neto is next asked about Adil Rashid’s comments yesterday, in which he said Neto had misunderstood his comments to her about Rafiq pressuring him. Does she accept that she got it wrong? “Absolutely not.”
Maculy concedes there is a difference of opinion. And with that Neto ends her evidence.
Updated
Mike Dickson, who wrote Michael Vaughan’s autobiography in 2009, makes a brief appearance.
He confirms that the passing reference to the 2009 match was an accurate reflection of what Vaughan told him at the time. And then he is free to go. We are now having a quick break.
Wood says he knows more information than he has disclosed.
Mulcahy asks Wood about his conversations with Adil Rashid when he was at the PCA, where he told him that he could talk to him because it was a “safe space”. Didn’t he abuse that trust?
“The hardest thing for me is that I had to sit on information for two-and-a-half years because of my job,” Wood responds. “I have sat on far more information than I have disclosed. I was basically in the middle of this and I knew every angle of attack. I have not got a lawyer’s team, I am not on anyone’s side. The stuff about Adil at the PCA probably was confidential but I have not betrayed a huge amount of trust. I know a lot more about this situation.”
And with that he concludes his evidence.
Wood is now asked about the second statement, which he only provided on 27 February about Rafiq saying someone “has to pay”. Mulcahy first notes the statement only came in earlier this week and then resumes her questioning.
Mulcahy: “When you say Mr Rafiq is saying ‘something has to pay’ do you mean with money?”
Wood: “I didn’t get the sense it was about cash payment. But what was notable was that he didn’t know what he wanted.”
Mulcahy: “He doesn’t remember crying on that call, but he remembers being broken.”
Wood: “He was broken and crying. We were on the call for 40 minutes and he was crying for half of the call.”
Mulcahy: “OK, we have a difference of opinion on that.”
Wood’s cross-examination continues.
Mulcahy says that he never told the Yorkshire investigators or the employment tribunal about Rafiq playing the race card. “The reason you didn’t is that Mr Rafiq didn’t play the race card,” she adds.
Wood: “At the time it wasn’t asked and I wasn’t sure where it was going. My superiors at the PCA knew about Rafiq’s comments and I later added it to my statement.”
Mulcahy: “You are his PCA representative and yet you went behind his back to tell [Yorkshire investigators] Squire Patton Bogg he used the race card?”
Wood: “I engaged in a process that I knew a lot of information about.”
Updated
Wood is pressed on his playing the race card claim.
Mulcahy says to Wood that he must have been aware of racism in Yorkshire cricket in 2018 after meeting Rafiq. Wood accepts that Rafiq “raised he was treated different” at that point.
Mulcahy then asks Wood about his claim that Rafiq used being Asian to get on a coaching course after the deadline had already passed. Mulcahy: “You are saying he used his race to get on the course.”
Wood: “I remember the call and I wanted him to get on the course. I’d advised him the deadline had passed and he had an idea how he could get on it.”
Mulcahy then reads a statement from Rafiq which disputes this. “This is a really odd thing for him to claim,” says Rafiq. “I was put on to the ECB by Peter Such … and I applied for the course by a hard application. I filled out a form and attended the interviews.”
“Do you accept that you are mistaken?” asks Mulcahy. “No. I am clear that Azeem thought there was a desire for South Asians to get on coaching courses and he asked about whether he could be funded.”
“There is nothing wrong about that, is there?” Mulcahy tells him.
We resume after lunch with Matthew Wood, a professional manager for the Professional Cricketers’ Association until 2021, confirming his two witness statements. Wood was Azeem Rafiq’s PCA rep and had conversations with the player in his position.
The first statement says: “In my dealings with Azeem, I was aware of two occasions in which he (directly or indirectly) acknowledged that he would be prepared to use the ‘race card’,” the statement says. “By that, I understood Azeem to mean that he would make, or allude to, an allegation of racism in bad faith in order to gain an advantage.”
Wood cites an August 2018 meeting when he alleges that Azeem said he would sign a new contract with the club if they remove “certain people” to back up his claim.
“I then asked Azeem “And what will you do if Yorkshire don’t offer you a new contract”. Azeem replied with the words to the effect of “I’ll just hit them with the race card.”
Wood then says that in 2020, Rafiq missed the deadline to get accepted onto the ECB’s Level 4 cricket coaching course, but made a phone call and got on it. “I got the impression from Azeem that he had used being Asian as leverage in order to bypass the fact that he had missed the deadline and got accepted onto the course,” Wood says.
In his second witness statement, Wood says that he had a conversation with Rafiq in late 2020, just a few days after his allegations featured extensively on Sky Sports, while he was on a Teams call with other PCA directors.
“In my conversation with Azeem, he said to me that ‘someone has to pay for this’,” Woods says in his statement. “When ‘I asked him ‘pay for what?,’ Azeem replied ‘I don’t know’. Azeem says my account of the conversation is incorrect and says that he was merely calling me out of courtesy to let me know that he was going to bring my name up in the context of his allegations.
“During the call, Azeem made reference to the media interest and said to me ‘I never intended for things to get this big’ and that he felt that ‘he had to stick with it now things have got this far,’ the statement continues.
“I remember asking him ‘how does this all end, Azeem?’ and Azeem replied ‘someone has to pay’ to which I said ‘pay for what?’ and Azeem said ‘I don’t know’. Azeem was really upset during the call and he cried for a good 20 minutes or so.”
Wood is now being cross-examined by Jane Mulcahy KC, counsel for Rafiq.
Vaughan ends his cross examination.
Mulcahy finishes by reminding Vaughan that “his lawyers have repeatedly sought to accuse Azeem Rafiq of leaking to George Dobell.” But she suggests that Vaughan’s agent Neil Fairbrother has also been in touch with Mr Dobell.
Mulcahy: “Have you or people on your behalf have been communicating with journalists?
Vaughan: “I have a column with the Telegraph so I speak to them about the columns I am writing about the game of cricket.”
Mulcahy: What about this case?
Vaughan: “I have people asking me how I am, and how I coping with the situation and I answer them. I have friends in the media.”
With that Vaughan’s cross-examination concludes and we break for lunch.
Vaughan continues to talk about the Rafiq meeting.
The former England captain also criticises the ECB hearing as he talks about when him and Rafiq met to discuss the case last year.
“I don’t think this is the right process to deal with a word v word process,” says Vaughan. “I don’t think it is the right way. I think it is a really bad look for the game. I listened. I apologised. The text message afterwards was one of ‘let’s work together’. I met with Adil [Rashid] last March to do a similar thing. We have to disclose discrimination and make sure people are accountable. But by having conversations, and understanding more about modern society, I thought we were on the right platform to work together. And that is obviously not the case.”
Vaughan says he has never seen the photo of him and Azeem Rafiq shaking hands, which his agent Neil Fairbrother has. But he wished it had been published for the good of the game and the wellbeing of both him and Rafiq.
Mucahy: “The best for you, Mr Vaughan?”
Vaughan: “Absolutely not.”
Vaughan also denies Rafiq’s claims yesterday that he was badmouthing him to colleagues while in Australia last year.
Vaughan is asked about his meeting with Rafiq in 2021.
He says he did so because felt the situation was “escalating out of control” and he could see what was happening to both Azeem and him and their families. He said that he also did so because of an “old fashioned” view that it would be better to meet face to face. Vaughan said had fish and chips from the shop and “they were nice”.
Explaining why he had previously apologised to Rafiq over treatment at Yorkshire, Vaughan says: “I’m disgusted with what Azeem has had to go through which is why when I met him in 2021. We had a great conversation over three to four hours,” he adds. “My experience playing for Yorkshire was not the experience Azeem had and for that I was apologetic … he did not have the experience I had.”
Vaughan contends he can’t apologise for something he can’t recall saying.
Mulcahy is continuing to suggest that if the atmosphere at Yorkshire in 2008 was as it was, Vaughan could have easily said the words “you lot.” Vaughan again denies it and said if he was the sort of player who made negative remarks before a game someone would have pointed it out during his career.
“I can’t apologise for something I can’t recall saying,” replies Vaughan. “My recollections from 2009 are very different. Whether I was an England captain or player, I don’t remember any time where I was called into a room and told you said x or y, so I have never done that.”
“But no one was ever going to come to you in Yorkshire?” says Mulcahy.
“There has always been a hotline to ring the PCA,” replies Vaughan. “That is available to a player or personality who doesn’t feel they can go to the captain or coach or chief executive.”
Vaughan insists he wanted his players to feel loved.
Mulcahy asks Vaughan why he shook hands with the four Asian players. He denies it was because they were “different” and he regarded them as “you lot.” Instead he says “something special” was happening that day. “As the senior player I wanted to shake the four Asian players’ hands because I couldn’t have been more proud,” he says. “I wanted them to be loved in the environment.
“One of my main strengths, which many people applauded me for, was creating a culture, managing people, making sure they were in the right place to deliver their skill. Whether that is playing the game or in the broadcast space in 2010. I have always gone out of my way to make people feel loved.”
Updated
Vaughan accepts historical tweets are unacceptable.
Jane Mulcahy now moves on to three historical tweets that Vaughan sent, including “Not many English people live in London ... I need to learn a new language,” from 2010 and another related to Mooen Ali. Vaughan agrees such tweets were wholly unacceptable and apologises for them. However, he insists they are not similar in tone than the “you lot”, he is alleged to have used in 2009.
“I hold my hand up about the tweets,” he says. I was disgusted with them. I apologised for them. I put myself on an online course, Inclusion. I wanted to lead the game in knowing how to lead in modern times . The tweets are disgusting, awful, and other words you could use. But the most important thing is I have said sorry and I am learning from them. As I say, if I get things wrong in my life, I stick my hands up,” he adds.
“I could not have been more proud ... four Asian players, three of whom had come through the system, as I wrote in my book.”
Updated
Vaughan denies hearing Matthew Hoggard use the P-word. “You are aware that Yorkshire has admitted there is systemic discrimination, including during the period you were there,” says Mulcahy. Vaughan agrees.
Mulcahy: “Do you accept the use of the word Paki is discriminatory?”
Vaughan: “Yes.”
Mulcahy: “Mr Hoggard played with you for Yorkshire and England?”
Vaughan: “Yes, for many years.”
Mulcahy: “Did you play with him between 1999 and 2008?”
Vaughan indicates he isn’t sure. “It’s like a Question of Sport, this,” he replies.
Mulcahy: “So you must have heard him use the word Paki?”
Vaughan: “I don’t recollect that … my experiences are that I didn’t hear it.”
Mulcahy: “If you heard it, would you have reported the words to management?”
Vaughan: “Yes.”
Updated
Mulcahy suggests Vaughan cannot be so sure he didn’t use the words. “I have been in cricket for 30 years now whether as a player or as a broadcaster since 2010,” replies Vaughan. “I’ve not had a team member come to me with a comment that I could have said like that. And the comment I am alleged to have said, that would have put my teammates in a position where they wouldn’t have been able to perform to their maximum and that is not what I am about.” Mulcahy suggests the words are “so bad they would’ve affected the morale of your team?” Vaughan: “Yes.”
Vaughan denies using the words attributed against him by Azeem Rafiq. The England captain, who is alleged to have said “there’s too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that” towards the four Asian players in the Yorkshire’s Twenty20 side when they faced Nottinghamshire on 22 June 2009, struggles to find the right witness file as the questioning begins.
Let’s start on what we may agree on, suggests Malcahy. You agree that the words “there are too many of you lot” is wholly unacceptable. “Absolutely.” And racist and discriminatory. “Absolutely.” When it comes down to the 22 June 2009, you don’t remember what was said that day do you? “No”. So it is not possible for you to categorically deny that you said those words, suggests Mulcahy.
Vaughan disagrees, saying that he has “a very clear mind about back in 2009” and that he knows he didn’t say the words alleged. He adds that he would never have gone on to a pitch and said something to a group of teammates that could “put them in a bad state of mind” before trying to win a game of cricket.
Michael Vaughan takes the stand
Vaughan’s legal counsel, Michael Stoner, asks him to confirm that his witness statement is true to the best of his knowledge. “I do,” replies Vaughan. The chair Tim O’Gorman suggests his evidence will take an hour. Jane Malcahy KC, the ECB counsel, will now cross-examine him.
Stoner questions ECB’s pursuit of Vaughan. Stoner asks Botros why the ECB has pursued Vaughan over the specific incident “when a number of other people” are said to have used the “you lot” term as part of systemic charges against Yorkshire. “That may be the case, but without specific evidence, we cannot take action,” Botros says.
Botros confirms that Azeem Rafiq had advance notice of the charges against Vaughan and other Yorkshire players. He then ends his cross examination by confirming that the ECB is paying for Rafiq’s security detail given the threats against him ... but not his lawyers or PR people.
Another short break now and after that we will hear evidence from Michael Vaughan, who will be up around 12.25pm.
Updated
Stoner notes that the Yorkshire player Rana Naved-ul-Hasan gave an interview to the journalist George Dobell, which backed Azeem Rafiq’s claims about Michael Vaughan’s comments. However he has since not engaged with the ECB’s investigation. “Not in terms of giving evidence, no,” agrees Botros.
Stoner asks about a phone message sent to Rana Naved-ul-Hasan about trying to set up a time to speak. Botros confirms that the Pakistan international replied that he was unavailable and did not respond to a follow up message. Botros adds that the ECB also had an email address for him but they didn’t know if it was correct and didn’t get a reply.
Updated
After the break, Stoner continues his cross-examination of Botros and the ECB’s investigation of Vaughan’s comments.
Mr Shahzad makes a serious allegation that he believes a witness is being pressured. Surely you go away and ask further questions? “We did and Adil Rashid answered that yesterday,” replies Botros. Did you ask Mr Rashid for any documents? “I don’t recall what specifically we asked in terms of messages.” You spoke to Mr Rafiq and you spoke to Mr Shahzad but you didn’t speak to any of the players? “I think that is correct.” You didn’t speak to any of the umpires, “No?” The cameraman? “No” Or ask to interview Mr Vaughan? “We wrote to him.” You weren’t really interested in looking into the matter, apart from finding corroborating evidence, were you Mr Botos? “That’s not correct.”
Botros confirms that what Shahzad said about backing Vaughan was not put to Bresnan and Gayle. “It was absolutely clear what Mr Bresnan and Gayle thought about Mr Rafeeq’s allegations and their attitude was crystal clear,” he explains. “We know they didn’t corroborate Mr Rafiq’s account.” He also confirms he didn’t ask Michael for an interview. “The reality was you were not interested in what Mr Vaughan had to say because he had already been charged, isn’t it,” asks Stoner. Botros says that is wrong.
The hearing is taking a break for 15 minutes.
Updated
Stoner is continuing to criticise the ECB’s evidence gathering - and questions why they did not contact the umpires of the match in question. “There is no suggestion that the umpires were close enough to hear it,” counters Botros. “There is a very specific allegation that it was loud enough for the Yorkshire players to hear it. Surely the fair and transparent thing to do is ask the umpires?” asks Stoner. Botros disagrees.
“One thing that is clear from the footage is the Sky cameraman is very close,” continues Stoner. “Surely you spoke to him. “No we didn’t,” responds Botros. Why did you not ask the question of the cameraman, who was filming the huddle? “Because there is no suggestion that the cameraman heard it. We had to carry out a reasonable and proportionate investigation.
“As part of your investigation you did not consider it important to speak to the cameraman who filmed the huddle?” asks a bemused Stoner. A defensive sounding Botros suggests he may not have heard anything because he had headphones on.
Botros is asked why comments from Shahzad, Gayle and Bresnan – who supported Vaughan’s view of events – were not initially given to Vaughan’s legal team. Botros says that he did make Stoner aware that Shahzad supported Vaughan’s account of events.
“But he went further than that,” says Stoner. “He says he didn’t hear it and Mr Vaughan is not the type of person to say it. And that document that was withheld from my client. “The ECB had the right to maintain privilege over it for good reason,” replies Botros.
“Surely you should have conducted an investigation and disclosed all documents, good and bad,” says Stoner. “We did subject to legal principles.” “And four months after he was charged my client finally got them.” “It was a significant amount of time before the hearing,” says Botros.
Notable admission by Botros, who confesses he was unable to get contact details for some of players involved in the match where Vaughan is alleged to have uttered the remarks to get evidence.
“You were speaking to some players. Did it occur to ask them if they had details of other players?” asks an incredulous Stoner. “The main way we got players was through the Professional Cricketers Association.”
Is it right that because the PCA did not get consent from three players, you took no other steps to approach those players? “Yes.”
Stoner continues to question Botros. He directs his attention to a point in his witness statement in which he stated: “In its capacity as a regulator, the ECB must remain independent of action being taken by one of its member first class county clubs.”
“That’s just not what happened, is it?” Stoner suggests. Botros bluntly replies: “It is what happened.” Botros, who continues to sound defensive, is then asked: Did you look at anyone’s phones to consider whether there were any relevant messages? “Messages?” Messages relevant to Michael Vaughan, replies Stoner. “We didn’t require anyone to hand their phones to us.” Did you ask in any event if you could look? “We asked for relevant documents from individuals. Did we ask for people to hand their phones physically over to us? No.”
Stoner is criticising the process of the ECB’s enquiry and its scope. He reads out comments from Lord Patel, who ran Yorkshire after the Azeem Rafiq allegations emerged, in an interview given to the Eastern Eye. In it Patel starts by saying: “when the going got tough the ECB didn’t back him”.
“I was asked by the ECB to meet a set of criteria that most people would have winced at, would have thought there’s no way we can deliver this, and I delivered it,” Patel adds. “I was asked by the ECB to work with them to create a framework and an environment where we would prove to the world that we want a non-racist institution, and I did all that. I was asked by the ECB to ensure some people who were there from the previous regime did not take part in that governance process, very clear about that.”
Stoner asks whether Patel is right that during the period of the investigation into Yorkshire the ECB asked him to do all those things. “That is what you have read out, so that is the case.”
Are you saying Lord Patel is not being truthful? “I am not saying that was the case. I can’t talk of the things that Lord Patel talks about.”
Stoner suggests the ECB were “actively involved” in the Yorkshire situation while the investigation was ongoing. However, Botros insists that Stoner is “mistaking” the ECB’s regulatory function from its other roles.
Updated
Christopher Stoner KC, counsel for Vaughan, is questioning Botros’s submission, saying it should have included points for and against the ECB’s case rather than be one-sided. Stoner then asks “what on earth is the purpose” of Botros mentioning in his witness statement that Ajmal Shahzad “notably” failed to mention that he had shaken Michael Vaughan’s hand before the T20 match.
Of course Shahzad was the Yorkshire player who has said he never heard anything untoward said by Vaughan – and Stoner suggests that the ECB was trying to undermine Shahzad’s evidence.
“No – it’s in there to set out relevant information in terms of what I can give for my witness statement,” replies Botros. He disagrees with Stoner’s line of questioning and insists the ECB’s investigation was “fair and proportionate”.
Updated
We now move back to the ECB’s case against Michael Vaughan, who is
charged with the use of “racist and/or discriminatory language”. He is alleged to have said “there’s too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that” towards the four Asian players before Yorkshire’s Twenty20 match against Nottinghamshire on 22 June 2009. It is the only charge brought against Vaughan who denies the allegation.
Meena Botros, the ECB’s director of legal and integrity, takes the stand. He was in charge of the ECB’s investigation into Yorkshire.
Updated
Preamble
Day three of the Cricket Discipline Commission has just got under way, with Michael Vaughan due to give evidence later.
The day starts with the former Scottish cricketer Majid Haq confirming his witness statement in regards to Jon Blain, who is one of the Yorkshire players charged by the ECB. No questions are asked of him before he leaves the stand.
