Lancashire League Handbook 2025

LCL Handbook 2025 255 27 to be determined by a Disciplinary Panel at a Hearing. By way of example, it may be appropriate for on-field offences at Level 1 and Level 2, or off-field offences which would constituteaLevel1orLevel2offence iftheyhadbeencarriedoutonthefield(e.g.dissent), to be determined using the Summary Procedure rather than at a Hearing. However, on- field offences at Level 3 and Level 4 and all other off-field offences should be determined byaDisciplinaryPanel.Where thesanctionpotentiallyavailable is significant, forexample a third Level 2 on-field breach within 24 months resulting in a 12-match ban, the case should be determined by a Disciplinary Panel rather than under the Summary Procedure. 8.2. If a Relevant Cricket Organisation decides to adopt the Summary Procedure, it should adopt clear internal guidelines on the types of cases that should be determined at a Hearing and the types of cases that should be determined using the Summary Procedure. These guidelines should then be applied consistently to all cases the Relevant Cricket Organisation has to deal with. 9. Disciplinary Panel Hearing Process (Regulations 29-39) 9.1. Reasonableness will depend on the circumstances of the case but, in most instances, it is reasonable to request a response to a Charge Letter within seven days. 9.2. Any Hearing should be arranged in a timely manner. As the matters brought under the Regulations will likely involve volunteers in most instances, this will likely differ for each matter. However, arranging a Hearing in a timely manner means allowing sufficient time for all the parties concerned to prepare adequately, taking account of their availability and other commitments but not scheduling a Hearing so far in advance that it causes unreasonable delay. There must still be efficient handling of all matters and determination within a timeframe that allows everyone concerned to recall the matter adequately. Although a Hearing may be rescheduled if the Respondent is not able to attend at the original date or time, this is designed to ensure that the Respondent is given an opportunity to attend and will not be used by the Respondent as a way to unreasonably delay proceedings. If the Disciplinary Officer feels that the Respondent is seeking to unreasonably delay proceedings (for example, if they have requested multiple postponements of the Hearing without very good reason) they will take this into account when deciding whether to agree to the Respondent’s request to reschedule the Hearing. 9.3. Itmay be appropriate for Relevant Disciplinary Bodies to seek to ensure that they arrange a Hearing within 28 days of the Charge Letter. However, this timeframe may not be appropriate in all cases and a shorter timeframe may be considered more expedient in the interests of the case. A longer timeframe may also be considered in extremely complex cases. 9.4. The Disciplinary Panel Chair has the discretion to set a disciplinary timetable as they consider appropriate. This means they can administer the proceedings according to a timetable they deem fit for the matter at hand (albeit whilst ensuring compliance with the Regulations). The Disciplinary Panel Chair should notify the parties, within a reasonable timescale in advance of the Hearing, of their expectations on all parties and provide the parties with the opportunity to: (a) share any documentation relevant to the case of either party in the proceedings, such as witness accounts; (b) submit any written witness accounts and/or any other evidence that relate to the charge(s) against the Respondent; and/or (c) prepare written submissions where the Disciplinary Panel considers the proceedings to be sufficiently sensitive or complex to require them. 9.5. Although it is a matter for the Disciplinary Panel Chair to determine how to run the Hearing, most Hearings relating to a breach of the Regulations should be inquisitorial