Arising from a recent reference, the Disciplinary Committee has decided it would be helpful if it were to clarify the scope, and limits, of its jurisdiction under Association Rule 23.

Having taken legal advice, the Committee has concluded that its jurisdiction is confined to events which take place during, or arise directly from, competitive games during the period these are regulated by the Laws of the Game. This could for instance include subsequent published criticism of umpiring decisions taken during that period; but not non-cricket related misdemeanours in public locations in which players might be involved before or after a game.  These have to be a matter for the civil authorities.

 As in other jurisdictions (e.g. student discipline) where offences might be committed, the Association can only intervene and impose its own (cricket-related) penalties where – if legally challenged - it could prove to the satisfaction of a Court these were necessary and proportionate for the welfare of the Association, its clubs or players, within the Object stated in Clause 2 of its Constitution – “the general improvement and control of cricket in the district”. Any other intervention by the Association would normally be regarded as double jeopardy.