Confusion surrounds Yorkshire CCC racism trial after Azeem Rafiq demands that the hearings are in public

THREE MONTHS ago Azeem Rafiq stated, apparently in passing, that his preference was for the Yorkshire racism trial to be held in public.
Azeem Rafiq, centre, at the Headingley Test match between England and New Zealand in June. On the left is George Dobell, the journalist who has championed his story from the start. Picture by Allan McKenzie/SWpix.comAzeem Rafiq, centre, at the Headingley Test match between England and New Zealand in June. On the left is George Dobell, the journalist who has championed his story from the start. Picture by Allan McKenzie/SWpix.com
Azeem Rafiq, centre, at the Headingley Test match between England and New Zealand in June. On the left is George Dobell, the journalist who has championed his story from the start. Picture by Allan McKenzie/SWpix.com

Now it seems that the former Yorkshire player is refusing to take part in the process unless he gets his wish, plunging the situation into a sudden state of confusion and uncertainty.

Rafiq, 31, is the central witness in a case which has resulted in the club and seven former Yorkshire players being charged by the England and Wales Cricket Board in a probe that has lasted for months and already cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Although Rafiq has not wavered since June from his desire for a public hearing, although not for the full-blown public inquiry that would examine every detail of the case, his legal team is now understood to have written to the ECB’s Cricket Discipline Commission intimating that he will not now participate if matters are indeed conducted in private, as they were always going to be and which is common practice with CDC hearings.

Azeem Rafiq addressing the DCMS hearing last November. Picture: House of Commons/PA WireAzeem Rafiq addressing the DCMS hearing last November. Picture: House of Commons/PA Wire
Azeem Rafiq addressing the DCMS hearing last November. Picture: House of Commons/PA Wire

The Yorkshire Post made efforts to clarify Rafiq’s position and reasoning for the U-turn or at least his upping of the ante, but his public relations team, Powerscourt, did not wish to comment.

However, they did not dispute that Rafiq indeed wants the hearings, slated for October and November, to be carried out in the full public glare - a request that the ECB almost certainly cannot grant as much of the evidence gained was on the understanding that the hearings would be private.

The Yorkshire Post understands that some of those accused are not bothered either way; they feel that they have been wrongly tarnished and desire only to clear their name, while they would also relish what would be the first chance to put Rafiq under serious cross-examination (an opportunity that the private hearings would also afford), with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee hearing of last November having been exposed as a show trial that suppressed key evidence.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, others are believed to be not so keen for a public hearing given that “mud sticks”, as the saying goes, and they would not want allegations to be thrown around publicly for that reason.

They are also concerned about the ongoing mental impact of the case should it stall or, worse still, collapse, both on them as individuals and also on their families, with The Yorkshire Post having been told several harrowing stories too sensitive to publish.

Although a public CDC hearing would indeed be unusual, nay unprecedented, it is thought that there is nothing in the rules to prevent that from happening, although efforts to clarify the ECB/CDC position were also unsuccessful.

However, the ECB is unlikely to want a public hearing either given that its own shortcomings would be exposed; it is understood, for example, that the ECB has interviewed only one of the seven individuals charged with misconduct, while numerous others connected to the case have not been contacted.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Back in June, when the ECB laid its charges, Rafiq said at the end of a statement: “My preference would be for this hearing to take place publicly, but I am hopeful that we are at least nearing a point where there will be some sense of closure for my family and me.”

Will there ever be full closure, however, or full disclosure in this case.