‘Not be heard entirely behind closed doors’ - Sullivan reacts to David Warner's captaincy ban hearing

David Warner is currently busy playing for Australia in the ongoing Test series. In the last few days, he made headlines by sharing a statement regarding his lifetime ban from captaincy for the Aussies. Warner said: “In effect, counsel assisting, and, it appears, to some extent the review panel, want to conduct a public trial of me and what occurred during the Third Test at Newlands.”

“They want to conduct a public spectacle to, in the panel’s words, have a ‘cleansing’. I am not prepared for my family to be the washing machine for cricket’s dirty laundry. And the review panel appears determined to expose me and my family to further humiliation and harm by conducting a media circus,” David Warner concluded. Now, regarding that, Sullivan reacted as full transparency needs to be there.

“The Panel is unable to agree, at this stage, to the proposed limitation.″⁣ - Sullivan on David Warner

On the same matter, Sullivan said: “Given the importance of this application, the fact it is the first of this kind, the public interest in the matter and the publicity which has already been generated about the possible application, the Panel is of the view that this application should be conducted as transparently as possible (but consistently with giving proper regard to the wellbeing of the Player and his family) and that such transparency requires that it not be heard entirely behind closed doors.”

“That said, as already indicated, at the hearing the parties will be at liberty to make applications that particular evidence or particular parts of the hearing be conducted in private. The Panel will hear submissions at the time any such applications might be made and consider any material put forward in support,” Sullivan added. 

"The Panel will then promptly rule on any such application. But the panel is not inclined to make any such rulings in advance of the hearing and without evidence. The Panel will only ask questions it considers relevant bearing closely in mind the purposes, objects, text, and requirements of Article 10 and the dictates of procedural fairness,” Sullivan concluded.