The FA v Kieran Trippier - All Bets Are Off

On 1 May 2020 it was announced that Kieran Trippier (“the Player”) had been charged with misconduct for alleged breaches of the FA Rules 2019/2020 (“the Rules”), rules E8(1)(a) and (b) in respect of events that had occurred in July 2019 (“the Charges”). In particular, on 17 July 2019 the Player was subject to a transfer from Tottenham Hotspur FC (“Spurs”) to Club Atlético de Madrid (“Atlético”). It is understood that the Charges related to seven alleged breaches of the Rules, rule E8(1)(b) and one alleged breach of the Rules, rule E8(1)(a)(ii). The Rules, rules E8(1)(a) and (b) state:

‘(1)(a) A Participant shall not bet, either directly or indirectly, or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet on -

(i) the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in or in connection with, a football match or competition; or

(ii) any other matter concerning or related to football anywhere in the world, including, for example and without limitation, the transfer of players, employment of managers, team selection or disciplinary matters.

(b) Where a Participant provides to any other person any information relating to football which the Participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time [(“Inside Information”)], the Participant shall be in breach of this Rule where any of that information is used by that other person for, or in relation to, betting’ (emphasis added).

A hearing took place in respect of the Charges on 14, 15 and 16 October 2020 (“the Liability Hearing”). A further hearing took place on 18 December 2020 in respect of the Charges that had been proved and to determine the appropriate sanction to impose on the Player (“the Sanction Hearing”).

On 22 December 2020 it was announced that the sanction imposed on the Player for the Charges that had been proved was: (i) a ten-week, worldwide suspension from all football-related activity; and (ii) a £70,000 fine, effective from 23 December 2020.

This article will explain what happened at the Liability Hearing and the Sanction Hearing, and considers the appropriateness of the sanction imposed on the Player, Atlético’s dissatisfaction with the worldwide effect of the 10-week suspension and FIFA’s suspension of the worldwide effect of the 10-week suspension announced on 3 January 2020.

The Liability Hearing

It should be noted that the Rules, rule E8(1)(c) provides a defence to a charge of a breach of Rule E8(1)(b) as follows:

‘It shall be a defence to a charge brought pursuant to… E8(1)(b) if a Participant can establish, on the balance of probability, that the Participant provided any such [Inside Information] in circumstances where he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the information provided would be used by the other person for or in relation to betting’.

It should also be noted that the burden of proof in proving the Charges is with the FA, and that the standard of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (the FA Disciplinary Regulations 2019/2020, General Provisions, para. 8). 

The FA relied upon evidence from a Thomas Astley, an integrity and intelligence analyst employed by the FA. Mr Astley had undertaken investigations following ‘a report to the FA by one or more bookmakers of suspicious betting activity prior to the date of [the Player’s] transfer on 17 July 2019 from [Spurs] to [Atlético]’. The FA also relied upon a ‘forensic download of [the Player’s] mobile phone’, and transcripts of interviews with the Player and two others, a Oliver Hawley (“OH”) and someone referred to as ‘J’.[1]

The Player relied upon his own witness evidence, and witness evidence from two others, a Matthew Brady (“MB”) and someone referred to as ‘B’. The Player also relied on witness evidence from, inter alia, Gareth Southgate, Harry Kane and Sean Dyche, which focused on the Player’s good character and trustworthiness.[2] The Player did not rely upon any witness evidence from OH.

The following evidence was undisputed:[3]

• On 13 June OH placed two £10 bets on the Player being transferred from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 4/1.

• On 5 July 2019 the Player sent messages to OH stating that he was due to have a meeting with one of his intermediaries on 8 July 2019, and that he was also due to have a meeting with Mauricio Pochettino, then manager of Spurs, on 8 July 2019 to discuss his future.

• The Player’s meeting with Mauricio Pochettino did not take place on 8 July 2019.

• On 9 July 2019 the Player had a meeting with Mauricio Pochettino and Daniel Levy, chairman of Spurs. During that meeting it was ‘made clear that [the Player’s] future was not at [Spurs]’.

• At 2:59pm on 11 July 2019 OH placed a bet of £20 on the Player being transferred from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 6/1. OH then sent a message to the Player stating ‘6/1 Athletico Madrid 👀 (sic)’. The Player then replied to OH with ‘😂 😂 😂’.

• At 3:13pm on 11 July 2019 OH placed two bets, one of £42.15 and another of £50, both on the Player being transferred from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 7/2.

• At 4:02pm on 12 July 2019, one of the player’s intermediaries, Greg Wadsworth, sent a message to the Player stating that Atlético had announced the transfer of Antoine Griezmann from Atlético to FC Barcelona and that ‘hopefully that kick Athletico on! (sic)’.

• At 6:39pm on 12 July 2019 the Player sent a message to OH stating ‘It’s happening 👍’. OH and the Player exchanged further messages, and OH and the person referred to as J placed bets on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético. OH placed one bet of £65 at odds of 7/2 and one bet of £40 at odds of 9/4. J placed three bets, although it is unspecified in what amounts and at what odds.

• On the morning of 13 July 2019 OH placed a bet of £20 on the Player being transferred from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 6/4. Following further messages between the Player and OH, one of which included the Player asking OH to ‘Come Madrid with me to sign’, OH placed another bet of £20 on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 4/1.

• On the evening of 13 July 2019 the Player and OH exchanged several messages, which included the Player informing OH that his transfer from Spurs to Atlético was ‘all agreed just waiting for them to come to an agreement with the fee’ and that the transfer ‘Should be done tomorrow or defo Monday (sic)’. Following these messages, OH placed two bets of £22 on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 5/6.

• On 14 July 2019 the Player and MB were messaging each other. In respect of the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético MB asked ‘Shall I lump on you going there? 😂’, to which the Player replied with ‘Can do mate’. MB then also asked ‘100% Tripps?’, to which the Player replied with ‘Yeah mate’. The Player also sent a message to MB stating: ‘Lump on if you want mate 😂’.

• On 15 July 2019 the Player sent a message to a WhatsApp group chat that included OH stating: ‘nearly done deal levy just wants £500k more (sic)’. Later that day, the Player sent a message to another WhatsApp group chat that included OH and Greg Wadsworth stating: ‘Come on Greg the clock is ticking get this deal done’. Mr Wadsworth replied stating: ‘On it’. OH subsequently placed fours bets on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético, one bet of £100 at odds of 5/6, one bet of £120 at odds of 5/6, one bet of £8.75 at odds of 1/2, and one bet of £20 at odds of 1/2. 

• Later on 15 July 2019, the Player sent a message to a WhatsApp group that included OH stating: ‘Done Deal 👍😁’. OH subsequently placed a bet of £300 on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 4/11. Although not in the aforementioned WhatsApp group, J later placed a bet of £25 on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 8/13. Again although not in the aforementioned WhatsApp group, MB later messaged the Player stating: ‘Could only put a little bit on mate, they massively restricted the bet, keep me posted pal 🙏😬😬’.

• On 16 July 2019 the Player sent a message to a WhatsApp group that included OH and the person referred to as B stating that Spurs and Atlético had agreed a transfer fee of £25m and that he was ‘flying out today and do my medical tomorrow’. OH subsequently placed two bets on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético, one of £20 at odds of 1/3, and one of £300 at odds of 1/6. B also subsequently placed a bet of £80.34 on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético at odds of 3/10.

The Charges

The first of the Charges alleged that the Player had provided Inside Information to OH on or before 11 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which OH then used to place bets (“Charge 1”).[4] In particular Charge 1 focused on the bets OH placed on 11 July 2019 in respect of the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético. The Regulatory Commission dismissed Charge 1 on the basis that, inter alia, (i) there was an absence of evidence demonstrating that the Player had provided OH with any Inside Information on or before 11 July 2019; (ii) the Player’s evidence was accepted that there was no Inside Information to impart at that time; (iii) the only information known about the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético at that time was what was being reported in the press; and (iv) OH was a ‘prolific gambler on sport and it beggars belief that his betting overall was dependent on inside information… before 11 July he had bet upon [the Player] being transferred to Juventus; there has never been any suggestion that this bet was placed following receipt of inside information from [the Player]’.[5]

Significantly however, when dealing with Charge 1, the Regulatory Commission also decided that in respect of the Charges that concerned OH, the Player would be unable to rely upon the defence provided in the Rules, rule E8(1)(c). In particular, the Regulatory Commission stated that OH’s message sent to the Player on 11 July 2019 stating ‘6/1 Athletico Madrid 👀 (sic)’ was ‘the clearest indication to [the Player], put at its lowest, that OH was contemplating placing a bet on his transfer to Atlético’.[6] The Regulatory Commission also found that the Player ‘probably knew that OH was a prolific gambler on a wide range of sports’ considering that OH was one of the Player’s ‘closest and most trusted friends’.[7] The Regulatory Commission was therefore of the opinion that the Player failed to prove that he could not reasonably have known that the Inside Information he imparted to OH would be used for or in relation to betting. Interestingly and pragmatically on this point, the Regulatory Commission identified the following in paragraph 85 of its written reasons:

‘We have given some weight to the fact that for professional players a move abroad is a substantial decision that effects friendships and family and justifies discussion with friends and family. Players are entitled to trust their friends and their family and in this case the relationship between [the Player] and OH was of long duration and obviously close. That [the Player] did discuss matters with OH relating to his transfer was a natural course of their friendship and does not show actual knowledge of betting and whilst [the Player’s] trust was misplaced and objectively wrong such that he could reasonably have known of OH’s betting, we do not find that [the Player] actually knew OH was betraying that trust’.

The second of the Charges alleged that the Player had provided Inside Information to OH on or before 12 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which OH then used to place bets (“Charge 2”).[8] In particular Charge 2 focused on the Player’s message sent to OH on 12 July 2019 stating: ‘It’s happening 👍’. The Regulatory Commission dismissed Charge 2 on the basis that the Player’s words did not amount to Inside Information.[9] In particular, the Regulatory Commission did not accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the words ‘It’s happening’ signalled to OH something that was not then publicly known. The Regulatory Commission noted that at the relevant time it was ‘common knowledge’ from the press that Atlético was interested in the Player but there was no evidence to suggest that anything more had happened beyond what was being reported in the press, such as a meeting between Atlético and the Player.[10]

In this author’s opinion, the Player is fortunate that the Regulatory Commission assessed the evidence the way it did in respect of Charge 2 for two reasons. Firstly, at one point in the cross-examination of the Player he conceded that ‘It’s happening’ referred to his transfer from Spurs to Atlético.[11] Secondly, Greg Wadsworth’s message sent to the player earlier in the day on 12 July 2019 stating: ‘hopefully that kick Athletico on! (sic)’, must have been rooted on an informed basis known only to Mr Wadsworth, one of the Player’s intermediaries, and also been a reason why the Player later stated: ‘It’s happening’.

The third of the Charges alleged that the Player had provided Inside Information to OH on or before 13 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which OH then used to place bets (“Charge 3”).[12] In particular Charge 3 focused on the Player’s message sent to OH on 13 July 2019 stating, for example, ‘Come Madrid with me to sign’. The Player accepted that the messages he sent on 13 July 2019 amounted to Inside Information and that OH had used this information to subsequently place bets. [13] Accordingly, Charge 3 was proved unless the Player could establish the defence provided in the Rules, rule E8(1)(c). However, as noted above, insofar as the Charges concerned OH the Player was unable to rely upon that defence following OH’s message sent to the Player on 11 July 2019 stating: ‘6/1 Athletico Madrid 👀 (sic)’.[14] Accordingly, Charge 3 was proved.

The fourth of the Charges alleged that the Player had (a) provided Inside Information to MB on or before 14 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which MB then used to place a bet; or (b) instructed, permitted, caused and/or enabled MB to place a bet on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético (“Charge 4”).[15] In particular Charge 4 (a) and (b) focused on the messages sent between the Player and MB on 14 and 15 July 2019. 

The Regulatory Commission found that MB had placed a bet on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético, although the amount of that bet was unknown.[16] The Regulatory Commission also found that the Player had provided MB inside information to MB in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético, which is clear from the messages referred to above and which ‘in reality [was] not disputed by [the Player]’.[17] Further, the Regulatory Commission found that the messages sent between the Player and MB on 14 and 15 July 2019 ‘very strongly suggest that MB would bet on the transfer and, further, that [the Player] knew that he would’.[18] Accordingly, Charge 4(a) was proved and the Player was unable to rely upon the defence provided in the Rules, rule E8(1)(c).

Charge 4(b) was the one of the Charges brought under the Rules, rule E8(1)(a)(ii), as identified at the beginning of this article. The Regulatory Commission dismissed Charge 4(b) on the basis that the Player’s messages sent to MB on 14 and 15 July 2019 showed that the Player did not ‘instruct, permit, cause or enable’(applying the natural and obvious meaning of those words) MB to place a bet on the Player’s transfer from Spurs to Atlético. The Regulatory Commission considered, and rightly so in this author’s opinion, that the Player’s messages sent to MB on 14 and 15 July 2019 were no more than ‘encouraging’.[19]

The fifth of the Charges alleged that the Player had provided Inside Information to OH on or before 15 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which OH then used to place bets (“Charge 5”).[20] In particular Charge 5 focused on the Player’s messages sent to a WhatsApp group that included OH on 15 July 2019 stating, for example, ‘nearly done deal levy just wants £500k more (sic)’ and ‘Done Deal 👍😁’. The Player accepted that the messages he sent on 15 July 2019 amounted to Inside Information and that OH had used this information to subsequently place bets.[21] Further, and again for the same reasons identified above, the Player was unable to rely upon the defence provided in the Rules, rule E8(1)(c).[22] Accordingly, Charge 5 was proved.

The sixth of the Charges alleged that the Player had provided Inside Information to OH on or before 16 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which OH then used to place bets (“Charge 6”).[23] In particular Charge 6 focused on the Player’s messages sent to a WhatsApp group that included OH on 16 July 2019 stating, for example, that a fee had been agreed between Spurs and Atlético and that the Player was flying out to Atlético. The Regulatory Commission had no difficulty in finding that the messages he sent on 16 July 2019 amounted to Inside Information and that OH had used this information to subsequently place bets.[24] Further, and yet again for the same reasons identified above, the Player was unable to rely upon the defence provided in the Rules, rule E8(1)(c).[25] Accordingly, Charge 6 was proved.

The seventh and final of the Charges alleged that the Player had provided Inside Information to the person referred to as B on or before 16 July 2019 in respect of his transfer from Spurs to Atlético and which B then used to place bets (“Charge 7”).[26] In particular Charge 7 also focused on the Player’s messages sent to a WhatsApp group that included B on 16 July 2019 stating, for example, that a fee had been agreed between Spurs and Atlético and that the Player was flying out to Atlético. The Regulatory Commission noted here that the Player accepted that the messages he sent on 16 July 2019 amounted to Inside Information, and that there was no difficulty in finding that B had used this information to subsequently place a bet.[27]

In respect of Charge 7 however, the Regulatory Commission found that the Player had successfully proved the defence provided in the Rules, rule E8(1)(c). In particular, the Regulatory Commission noted that there was nothing in the messages between the Player and B indicating the possibility of B using the Inside Information to place a bet, unlike those bets placed by OH and MB.[28] Accordingly, Charge 7 was dismissed.

The Sanction Hearing

When considering the appropriate sanction to impose in respect of the Charges that had been proved (Charge 3, 4(a), 5 and 6), the Regulatory Commission referred firstly to the FA’s Betting Sanction Guidelines:

The Regulatory Commission was of the opinion that Charge 3, 5 and 6 fitted in the second column of that part of the Betting Sanction Guidelines: ‘Providing inside information where Participant should reasonably have known it was likely to be used for betting’.[29] Further, the Regulatory Commission was of the opinion that Charge 4(a) fitted in the third column of that part of the Betting Sanction Guidelines: ‘Providing inside information knowing it was likely to be used for betting’.[30]

The Regulatory Commission then considered the following points:

• Any sanction to be imposed must be proportionate. Nevertheless, a sanction may still be considered proportionate even if it has ‘the combined aims of punishing the offender, deterring him and others from offending and protecting the integrity of the sport’, provided that the sanction is not out of all proportion to that which would otherwise be imposed.[31]

• There will be instances where previous decisions on sanctions from other Regulatory Commissions or Appeal Boards will be of relevance to subsequent decisions on sanctions. In particular, the Regulatory Commission considered the sanction imposed on Daniel Sturridge for his breaches of the Rules, rule E8(1)(a)(ii) and E8(1)(b) to be a relevant consideration.[32] In Daniel Sturridge’s case an Appeal Board had imposed a sanction of a four-month suspension from all football-related activity and a fine of £150,000, although the Regulatory Commission noted that ‘the misconduct of [Daniel Sturridge] was significantly worse than the misconduct of [the Player]’.[33]

• There were no aggravating factors against the Player.[34]

• There were a number of mitigating factors in favour of the Player, including (i) the Player’s previous disciplinary record; (ii) the Player’s general good character; (iii) the Charges proved spanned a period of only four days and occurred at a turbulent time in the Player’s football career considering injuries and uncertainty about a transfer; (iv) the Player had shown remorse; and (v) the Player’s willingness to provide his mobile phone to the FA for forensic analysis, which resulted in a substantial part of the evidential basis of the Charges.[35]

• The overall size of the bets placed by OH in relation to Charge 3, 5 and 6 was modest and therefore put the Player’s culpability ‘at the lower end of the scale’.[36]

• The Player’s net earnings.[37]

Considering all of those points, the Regulatory Commission decided that an overall suspension of 10 weeks from all football-related activity and a fine of £70,000 was a ‘proportionate response to [the Player’s] offending’.[38] It should be noted that the Player’s 10-week suspension involved concurrent periods of suspension for Charge 3, 5 and 6 (four weeks), and Charge 4(a) (10 weeks). The Player was also ordered to pay the costs of and associated with the Regulatory Commission, which although not specified will not be insignificant.[39]

Appropriateness of the sanction

The sanction imposed on the Player by the Regulatory Commission is appropriate insofar as the FA’s Betting Sanction Guidelines and comparable cases are concerned. The sanction sits comfortably within the FA’s Betting Sanction Guidelines. Further, the sanction imposed can even be considered generous to the Player when noting that the FA’s Betting Sanction Guidelines for offences ‘Providing inside information knowing it was likely to be used for betting’ (i.e. Charge 4(a)) state a guideline sanction of at least a three-month suspension.

This author does take issue however with why the FA’s Betting Sanction Guidelines, formulated in 2014, are so punitive when compared to sanctions issued or specified in guidance, presently or earlier, for Aggravated Breaches of the Rules, rule E3.1 (i.e. breaches including reference to ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability). For example, the FA’s present Standard Sanction and Guidance for Aggravated Breaches recommends a 6-12 match ban for a first Aggravated Breach of the Rules, rule E3.1. A 10-week suspension from all football-related activity imposed during a season, as seen in the Player’s case, is likely to result in a participant missing at least 6 matches. This author finds difficulty in equating the punishment for an act of discrimination with the punishment for conduct of the type seen in the Player’s case. If the FA wants to achieve a game free from discrimination by 2024 or ever and equity in its sanctions, then a recalibration of its sanction guidelines is necessary.

Notwithstanding that last point, and generally insofar as the principle of the written reasons, the sanction and the purpose of the Rules, Rule E8 are concerned, the Player’s case sends a forceful message to all of football’s participants against Inside Information being carelessly provided to others and being used to bet. The ramification are, besides the sanction itself, that the Player, and likely other participants, will certainly remember to tell their friends “do not bet on this” if ever imparting Inside Information in the future. This is not a difficult thing to do, particularly when the Rules are so clearly drafted and which participants should be aware of.

Worldwide ban

It will be noted that the Regulatory Commission’s written reasons do not refer to the sanction imposed on the Player as having worldwide effect. The worldwide effect of the sanction was announced by the FA ‘following an application to FIFA’.

The FIFA Disciplinary Code (“FDC”), article 66.1 states:

‘If the infringement is serious, in particular but not limited to discrimination, the manipulation of football matches and competitions, misconduct against match officials or forgery and falsification, the associations, confederations, and other organising sports bodies shall request the Disciplinary Committee to extend the sanctions they have imposed so as to have worldwide effect’.

It is this author’s opinion that the FA made a request pursuant to the FDC, article 66 for the Regulatory Commission’s sanction imposed on the Player to have worldwide effect. It is also this author’s opinion that the FA would have made such a request considering that the FA’s jurisdiction in respect of imposing a suspension from football extends to England only, not to Spain where the Player current plays for Atlético.

While the FA was successful in its request, it has been reported that Atlético has since caused FIFA to suspend the worldwide effect of the sanction imposed on the Player. In particular a spokesperson for FIFA has been reported as stating:

‘Following the appeal and, specifically, the request for provisional measures lodged by the club Atletico Madrid, the FIFA Appeal Committee has approved to stay the extension of the suspension until the procedure is over before the committee’.

It is this author’s understanding that Atlético has lodged an appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to extend the sanction imposed on the Player to have worldwide effect. The FDC, articles 56 and 57 state that FIFA’s Appeal Committee is competent to decide appeals against any of FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee’s decisions that FIFA regulations do not declare as final or referable to another body. This will include FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee’s decision to extend the sanction imposed on the Player to have worldwide effect. Further, the FDC, article 58.2 states that ‘clubs may appeal against decisions sanctioning their players, officials or members’. This gives Atlético the standing to make its appeal against FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee’s decision to extend the sanction imposed on the Player to have worldwide effect.

Accordingly, and for the avoidance of doubt, there is no appeal against the sanction imposed by the FA’s Regulatory Commission but there is an appeal against FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee’s decision to extend the sanction to have worldwide effect. Atlético’s appeal will be heard by FIFA’s Appeal Committee.

There is no identification of the grounds Atlético are relying upon in its appeal. The grounds could be, for example, that the worldwide effect of the sanction is disproportionate and/or that the Player’s breaches of the Rules, rule E8(1)(b) are not ‘serious’ within the meaning of the FDC, article 66.1. Nevertheless, the reason why FIFA’s Appeal Committee has suspended the worldwide effect of the sanction imposed on the player pending the outcome of Atlético’s appeal is because Atlético also made a request for ‘provisional measures’ to that effect. The FDC, article 48 allows for the chairperson of FIFA’s Appeal Committee or a nominee to ‘pronounce provisional measures where these are deemed necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice, to maintin sporting discipline or to avoid irreparable harm’.[40] It is understandable that, for example, ‘irreparable harm’ will be suffered if the worldwide effect of the sanction continues pending Atlético’s appeal and the appeal is then successful (e.g. the Player not playing for Atlético in the meantime).

Generally speaking, provisional measures apply for up to 90 days but they may be extended in exceptional circumstances (FDC, article 48.3). It is anticipated, therefore, that the outcome of Atlético’s appeal can be expected within the next three months if not much sooner considering that the Player’s 10-week suspension is currently running but without the worldwide effect.

Footnotes

[1] The Football Association v Kieran Trippier, The FA Regulatory Commission (Ch Sir Wyn Williams) 4 January 2021, [11].

[2] Ibid, [12] and [63].

[3] Ibid, [19]-[43].

[4] Ibid, [47]-[64].

[5] Ibid, [59].

[6] Ibid, [62].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, [65]-[73].

[9] Ibid, [70].

[10] Ibid, [69].

[11] Ibid, [68].

[12] Ibid, [74]-[75].

[13] Ibid, [74].

[14] Ibid, [75].

[15] Ibid, [86]-[99].

[16] Ibid, [89]-[93] and [131].

[17] Ibid, [98].

[18] Ibid, [99].

[19] Ibid, [94]-[95]

[20] Ibid, [77]-[79].

[21] Ibid, [77].

[22] Ibid, [78].

[23] Ibid, [80]-[85].

[24] Ibid, [80].

[25] Ibid, [81].

[26] Ibid, [100]-[101].

[27] Ibid, [100].

[28] Ibid, [101].

[29] Ibid, [104].

[30] Ibid, [111].

[31] Ibid, [117] and [132].

[32] Ibid, [122].

[33] Ibid, [122] and [132].

[34] Ibid, [123].

[35] Ibid, [124]-[127] and [129].

[36] Ibid, [131].

[37] Ibid, [132].

[38] Ibid, [134].

[39] Ibid, [136].

[40] Cf. FDC, article 61.2 which allows for a ‘stay of execution’ when an appeal is made but only upon a reasoned request being submitted for the same.

13 January 2021