SYDNEY, 31 January 2008 — An administrative mistake by the International Cricket Council (ICC) saved Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh from a possible suspension, the judge who heard his case said yesterday.
Harbhajan was fined half his match fee after pleading guilty to using offensive language against Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds during the second test in Sydney earlier this month.
However, New Zealand high court judge John Hansen said Harbhajan might have received a tougher penalty had the ICC correctly informed him about all his prior convictions. Hansen said the ICC told him Harbhajan had only one prior offense but after he had handed down his penalty, he discovered the Indian spinner had four previous offenses.
The most serious of those offenses occurred in South Africa in 2001 when Harbhajan was given a suspended sentence for showing dissent and trying to influence an umpire.
“If I had been aware of the serious transgression in November 2001 I would have required more extensive submissions as to the offense in mitigation which could have led to a different penalty,” Hansen wrote in his 49-page judgment released yesterday.
Hansen said that as soon as he became aware of the mistake, he began reviewing the code of conduct of laws to see whether he could change Harbhajan’s penalty, but discovered he was powerless to act.
“Regrettably I have concluded that I cannot do so and the penalty imposed by me must stand,” he said.
“At the end of the day Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors.” Harbhajan had originally been found guilty of racially abusing Symonds but Hansen dismissed the case through lack of evidence although he charged the Indian with the lesser offense of using abusive language.
Symonds, who is Australia’s only black player, accused Harbhajan of calling him “a monkey” during a heated exchange in the match.
Harbhajan denied the claim but admitted he used an abusive term in his native tongue, which he believed the Australians may have misunderstood as monkey.
“I have not been persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said,” Hansen said.
“I am left with an honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures.”
