Criminal liability in sport

seamus

Perhaps this is too sensitive to discuss right now, but I don't want to go into specifics more of a general discussion around the whole matter.

So we know of footballers and the like who've been convicted of assault for behaviour on the pitch.

But what of fighting sports like boxing, or MMA, or even martial arts tournaments down your local community centre?

All of these sports carry a certain risk of death or incapacitating injury if you get struck in a certain way. They put safety measures in place to reduce it, but it's always there.

In the event that someone is killed or permanently disabled as the direct result of a single fight, what are the potential outcomes for others?

The organisers obviously may be looked at for negligence - failing to assess the competitors beforehand, failure to end the bout earlier, etc.

What about the other competitor? The issue of consent is irrelevant, so could the other competitor be on the hook for manslaughter?

whippet

I would imagine if such a case was to go before the courts, the prosecution would have to establish if the athlete acted in a manner which would have inflicted a greater injury than what would have been expected.

For instance, in a boxing match .. throwing punches during a round and while the referee allows it would be seen to be normal practice and as such the opponent is expecting the action.

If one boxer is walking towards the corner after the bell and is struck by a punch and injured - this is outside the norm which the victim could not reasonably expect and could be interpreted as an assault.

I played amateur football most of my life and I personally believe that some of the 'tackles' I witnessed could have fallen under the term of assault.

godtabh

Would this be more of a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter?

whippet

godtabh wrote: »

Would this be more of a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter?

Depends on the nature of the incident. There was a case recently where a GAA player was charged and convicted of assault on the pitch .. Receiving a prison sentence (successfully appealed the sentence).

CIARAN_BOYLE

godtabh wrote: »

Would this be more of a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter?

Not having seen the incident but having seen condemnation that the referee didn't stop the fight earlier (issed by people on the scene prior to the hospitalisation of Carvalho) I believe that the referee could be a more exposed to a civil case.

kirkfx

godtabh wrote: »

Would this be more of a civil matter as opposed to a criminal matter?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

godtabh

whippet wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the incident. There was a case recently where a GAA player was charged and convicted of assault on the pitch .. Receiving a prison sentence (successfully appealed the sentence).

Is there a difference between that where that doesnt form part of the game where as in MMA its people kicking the crap out of each other?

godtabh

godtabh wrote: »

Is there a difference between that where that doesnt form part of the game where as in MMA its people kicking the crap out of each other?

There has to be a qualitative difference between being injured in the normal course of a sporting activity and being injured during a sporting activity due to an act outside the normal scope of that activity

Michael D Not Higgins

Would there be liability waivers signed in these instances? I assume so.

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

What about the other competitor? The issue of consent is irrelevant, so could the other competitor be on the hook for manslaughter?

I think so. Look at this case, where a Gaelic Football player was attacked and sustained 95% sight loss in one eye.

The attacker was convicted of assault causing harm. (He appealed his sentence but not the conviction itself).

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/gaa-player-jailed-over-assault-during-match-walks-free-1.2458910

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I think so. Look at this case, where a Gaelic Football player was attacked and sustained 95% sight loss in one eye.

The attacker was convicted of assault causing harm. (He appealed his sentence but not the conviction itself).

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/gaa-player-jailed-over-assault-during-match-walks-free-1.2458910

In that case the victim was punched in a game that does not allow punching. Punching another player, all GAA jokes aside, is not allowed in Gaelic football. Punching a guy without warning or provocation is another thing again.

That is not a comparable situation to a combat sport where a combatant is injured through absolutely legitimate strikes that form part of the sport. I would imagine there is almost no chance at all there will be even a serious discussion of a prosecution.

Pat Mustard

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not a comparable situation to a combat sport where a combatant is injured through absolutely legitimate strikes that form part of the sport. I would imagine there is almost no chance at all there will be even a serious discussion of a prosecution.

Sorry I skimmed over the bit about combat sports/MMA and was commenting on assault in sport in general. My mistake.

I agree with you.

seamus

I guess I was probing more towards the more serious incidents. Like tripping up when you go for a run, minor injuries are considered an inherent and acceptable risk in the course of a sport, which you consent to by taking part.

But for something more serious such as death, legally consent is irrelevant. Even if you agree to take part in something which has 100% chance of death, the fact that you consented cannot absolve other participants of blame.

Little CuChulainn

I think in a case such as the MMA one it would come down to whether the person who struck the final blows did so knowing, or being reckless as to whether, the blows would cause serious injury or even death. In a case where the opponent has been checked before each round this will be a difficult thing to prove though.

Now if the opponent was bleeding from both ears and his nose, holding his head and stumbling and a fighter still went in with a number of blows to the head it could be argued his actions were both unnecessary and excessive.

It would definitely be a complex trial.

(I'm talking hypothetically and not specifically about the Carvalho and Ward fight. I didn't see it and I don't know the specifics of it)

MarkAnthony

Justice Denham inadvertently made all contact sport illegal a few years back. I can never remember that bloody latin phrase.

MMA etc. is an interesting case in point as one cannot consent to a section 4 'assault' as they can to S2 and by reference S3.

johnnyskeleton

Its a psychological thing about organised events - like the test where peopls were told to administer electric shocks to another with increasing intensity and, despite visible pain on the other persons part, kept it up to high levels because they were instructed to do so by a guy dressed as a doctor.

If two lads agreed to go outside a pub a nd have a fight, and one dies, there would be a prosecution without question. But because some company sells tickets to such an event, people interpret that as somehow lawfully sanctioned.

IMO the law needs to be clarified for things like extreme sports, medical treatments, body augmentations etc.

MarkAnthony

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its a psychological thing about organised events - like the test where peopls were told to administer electric shocks to another with increasing intensity and, despite visible pain on the other persons part, kept it up to high levels because they were instructed to do so by a guy dressed as a doctor.

Milgram - brilliant mind.

Little CuChulainn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its a psychological thing about organised events - like the test where peopls were told to administer electric shocks to another with increasing intensity and, despite visible pain on the other persons part, kept it up to high levels because they were instructed to do so by a guy dressed as a doctor.

If two lads agreed to go outside a pub a nd have a fight, and one dies, there would be a prosecution without question. But because some company sells tickets to such an event, people interpret that as somehow lawfully sanctioned.

IMO the law needs to be clarified for things like extreme sports, medical treatments, body augmentations etc.

What amazes me is the amount of people who think there can be no legal issue for the fighters as long as the referee lets the fight go on. People seem to have this view that the law comes second to the rules of the sport.

Pat Mustard

There is an article in the Irish Times with one Neurologist calling for a ban on MMA and boxing (and another not favouring such a ban).
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/neurologist-calls-for-mixed-martial-arts-to-be-banned-1.2609597

Unshelved

Not a plug but "Law in sport, sport in law" is the theme of the Law Society's annual conference this weekend (15-16 April). Might be of interest to some -

http://www.lawsociety.ie/annualconference/

The_Minister

If memory serves Patrick Carroll BL had an article on criminal liability in sport a few years back in the Gazette - might be worth checking out.

Robbo

Jack Anderson has also published a number of articles on it.

NUTLEY BOY

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Justice Denham inadvertently made all contact sport illegal a few years back. I can never remember that bloody latin phrase.

MMA etc. is an interesting case in point as one cannot consent to a section 4 'assault' as they can to S2 and by reference S3.

Would that be volenti non fit injuria ?

MarkAnthony

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Would that be volenti non fit injuria ?

That's generally a civil concept. If you look at how the legislation is drafted (quite poorly IMO) section 4 of the NFOAPA is not an assault per se it's 'causing serious harm'. Sections 2 and 3 are assaults and consent can be read into section 3 from section 2.

There was an issue surrounding European Arrest Warrants which I'm sure looked very good in the exam but which has now filtered out of my tiny mind to be replaced with such useful information as to which of the Game of Thrones actresses were formaly/currently porn stars. the then Denham J made a ruling which was roundly ignored by everyone but the lads who carted ya man back to Poland.

I really should look it up...

UrbanFox

Was her decision per incuriam ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MarkAnthony

UrbanFox wrote: »

Was her decision per incuriam ?

That's the phrase I can never remember.

@Fred Usually a higher court, but where the decision in this case has such a patently unintended side effect I think it was just generally ignored. I really must dig out the decision as I'm not being clear on the effect here.