“retains the absolute discretion to impose any penalty within its general powers in respect of any proven allegation of breach of these Directives, save that the maximum penalties to be considered by the Commission in relation to an individual engaging in conduct covered by these Directives shall be as follows…”
“[24] But the issue was whether the tribunal "exceeded its powers" within the meaning of section 68(2) (b). This required the courts below to address the question whether the tribunal purported to exercise a power which it did not have or whether it erroneously exercised a power that it did have. If it is merely a case of erroneous exercise of power vesting in the tribunal no excess of power under section 68(2) (b) is involved... [31] ...section 68(2) (b) does not permit a challenge on the ground that the tribunal arrived at a wrong conclusion as a matter of law or fact. It is not apt to cover a mere error of law... [32] In order to decide whether section 68(2)(b) is engaged it will be necessary to focus intensely on the particular power under an arbitration agreement, the terms of reference, or the 1996 Act which is involved, judged in all the circumstances of the case. In making this general observation it must always be borne in mind that the erroneous exercise of an available power cannot by itself amount to an excess of power.
“... In particular this Panel emphasises the deliberate and planned approach, in conjunction with professional corrupters against whom Mr. Kaneria had been warned. Mr. Westfield was a young, comparatively modest paid player, on the fringes of the First Class game and, therefore, vulnerable to temptation offered to him through Mr. Kaneria, a massively experienced international player with considerable status in the Essex line-up. The Panel has taken full account of the cases drawn to its attention and, in particular, the more modest sentences imposed in the cases of [Salman] Butt, [Mohammad Asif] and others....The Panel, whilst noting the authorities which suggest that spot-fixing might be less serious than match-fixing, consider that, in the circumstances of this case, the distinction is not significant. Spot-fixing, being easier to arrange and harder to detect is an on-going evil as are recent trends further to extend corruption to less high-profile cricket. Many of the aggravating features, now enshrined in the ECB Anti-Corruption Code, are present in this case....the Panel finds that no lesser penalty than a life ban is appropriate both as a deterrent to others and also to ensure that he has no further opportunity to damage the game.”
“The general principle of lex mitior is not challenged in these proceedings – the issue, however, turns on whether or not, under the terms of the ECB rules, regulations or directives, an order for costs is properly to be considered a sanction or penalty. The Panel has considered, with care, the submissions made on Mr. Kaneria’s behalf but is satisfied that the ECB Regulations, governing these proceedings clearly distinguish between sanctions/penalties which constitute a form of punishment and the costs incurred during the course of the proceedings…”