David Warner lifetime leadership ban appeal: Greg Chappell, Pat Cummins, Andrew McDonald, Kane Williamson send letters of support

Letters of support from senior Australian, international cricket figures were provided to panel considering batsman’s leadership appeal.

David Warner (left) received letters of support from former Australian captains Greg Chappell (centre) and Lisa Sthalekar in his appeal against his lifetime leadership bank. Pictures: File

David Warner’s application to be released from his lifetime leadership ban was backed by letters of support from the some of the most senior Australian and international cricket figures, including captain Pat Cummins and former captain Greg Chappell.

The Australian can reveal that one of the reasons the process was derailed was the suggestion players and coaches could be cross-examined in a public hearing in the middle of this Test summer.

Coach Andrew McDonald, New Zealand captain Kane Williamson, who played with the batsman in the IPL, and former Australian captain Lisa Sthalekar were among those whose endorsements were provided for the commission.

Warner stormed away from the appeal process on Wednesday claiming that he wanted to protect his family from what he described as a “public lynching”.

The hearing was scheduled for Wednesday next week when Cummins, Warner and McDonald would have been in Brisbane preparing for the first Test against South Africa.

Warner supporter, New Zealand captain Kane Williamson, played with the Australian opener in the IPL. Picture: AFP

Current Australian captain Pat Cummins gave a letter of support to David Warner’s appeal against his lifetime ban. Picture: Getty Images

CA’s integrity chief Jacqui Partridge instituted an independent commission panel last month, composed of senior counsels Alan Sullivan, Robert Heath and Adrian Anderson, after a rule change allowed him to appeal his lifetime ban.

The commissioners appointed an assistant counsel, whose name has not been revealed.

The establishment of a panel followed a push from Cricket New South Wales, the Thunder and the Australian Cricketers Association to have the ban lifted and followed directions from Cricket Australia’s board.

Warner’s lawyer, Adam Lunn, a partner at Mills Oakley, objected to the insistence that the hearing be public, but their protest appears to have been ignored.

Cricket Australia also argued against the move.

“We do not see that there is any utility in counsel assisting cross-examining parties who have provided statements in support of Mr Warner,” Lunn wrote to Partridge after the directions hearing.

“Does he propose to call the captain and coach of the Test team in the middle of a Test series and seek to cross-examine them? What is he going to cross-examine them on? ‘Were you lying when you said….’?”

It is understood the counsel assisting was removed from the process after the directions hearing.

Lunn said Warner was more than happy to answer questions from the panel of senior legal figures, but it was inappropriate to have a public trial over events that were tested in 2018.

Warner, who was vice-captain at the time, received a lifetime leadership ban and 12-month playing ban following an investigation from Cricket Australia’s integrity unit.

Steve Smith received a two-year leadership and 12-month playing ban while Cameron Bancroft received an eight month ban for his role.

Smith is acting captain of the side in Adelaide for this Test match.

David Warner and Steve Smith leave the field at the end of play in the March, 2018 Kingsmead Test between Australia and South Africa. Picture: AFP

Warner received a more severe punishment than Smith and Bancroft as he was nominated as the “instigator” of ball-tampering.

Warner’s counsel argued strongly against the process being put in place by the independent panel.

“It is our view that the sentiments expressed by counsel assisting disclose a desire, on his part at least, to hold a public hearing in which he will use that opportunity to litigate the matters that occurred in the Third Test,” Lunn wrote to CA.

“Our concerns in this regard are reinforced by the fact that, despite the submission and objections of CA and Mr Warner, counsel assisting forcefully pressed for a public hearing when the question of the nature of the hearing was being considered.

“We are also disturbed that counsel assisting sought to reserve his position on when he might provide materials and identify witnesses that he may wish to cross-examine: as if he was trying to ‘buy time’ to fully prepare a case against Mr Warner and consider his approach to cross-examination.”

Warner’s representative alleges there was a “demonstrated bias” against the player and Cricket Australia.

Cricket Australia confirmed on Wednesday that it “supported David’s wish for these discussions to be heard behind closed doors and respect his decision to withdraw his application”.

The head body changed the rules in the hope Warner’s ban would be lifted. It said on Wednesday he was “a highly regarded member of the Australian team who has been a great ambassador for the game as a whole since his return from the year-long ban”.

According to documents provided to The Australian, the tribunal justified its push for a public hearing against the wishes of both parties involved because it was “an independent tribunal”, there is “huge public interest in the matter”, the “cricket community needs to be informed”, “it will have a cleansing effect” and there is a “new regime at CA”.

Warner’s lawyer argued the process, which should have been private and restricted to him proving remorse and details of his reformed behavior since the ban, had gotten out of hand.

David Warner, his wife Candice and their children arrive at Sydney International Airport on March 29, 2018 following the sandpaper scandal. Picture: AAP

“It is our view that counsel assisting adopted an overly interventionist and adversarial approach to the conduct of the hearing and curiously appeared to adopt a position that in some respects seemed to adopt a position that in some respects seem don’t reflect an understanding on his part that his role is to forcefully advance contrary interests and aligned positions expressed by both interested parties – that is, Cricket Australia and Mr Warner,” Tubb wrote.

The lawyer argued there was nothing in Cricket Autralia’s Code of Conduct which provided for an independent tribunal and that public interest was also not a consideration.

“The public interest in this matter, to the extent that there might be a public hearing, would be, in our view, little more than voyeuristic,” he said, arguing any public interest could be served by an appropriate announcement.

Warner’s counsel argued the matter should be judged “on papers” or by what was submitted rather than a hearing to “avoid disruption to his (and the team’s) commitments in the summer’s Test series”.

The lawyers also objected to alleged suggestions that not wanting to be cross examined would weigh against Warner.

“Contrary to the unhelpful implication expressed by counsel assisting, Mr Warner is not seeking to avoid responsibility by seeking to have the matter dealt with on the papers, nor should his application in that regard be interpreted as some indication of a lack of remorse”.