The dual use of evidence in both sporting tribunals and criminal proceedings (doping in sports pt. 4)

Parliament house flag post

The dual use of evidence in both sporting tribunals and criminal proceedings (doping in sports pt. 4)

Posted 11/04/2013 by Jaan Murphy

The previous FlagPost in this series explored what happens once a possible Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) is detected, and the role of sporting tribunals in determining and sanctioning athletes or support personnel who are found to have committed an ADRV.

As part of that process, ASADA (and also potentially Customs and the AFP) collect a variety of evidence. So when can evidence collected as part of an anti-doping investigation be used in criminal and civil proceedings and vice-versa?

This FlagPost examines the long-standing tradition of the ‘dual use’ of evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings in Australia and the situation with regard to sporting tribunals and criminal proceedings.

Same conduct, two sets of proceedings 

The Australian Institute of Criminology notes ‘Professional behaviour may be investigated by the civil and criminal courts, registration authorities and a variety of consumer-oriented statutory bodies…’. As an example of this, doping may involve:
  • a breach of an anti-doping rule under the relevant Sporting Administration Body (SAB) rules or
  • conduct which constitutes a criminal offence (examples of such criminal offences are examined in the next FlagPost in this series) or
  • a breach of other Commonwealth or state or territory laws (such as the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (TGA Act)).
However, it is important to note, that in Australia, the administrative and criminal processes and sanctions related to doping remain separate.
 
The fact that an athlete is sanctioned by a sporting tribunal for an ADRV does not prevent the commencement of criminal proceedings arising from the evidence used to establish the ADRV (and vice versa). Whilst this might appear unjust, there are many parallels in the Australian legal system.
 
For example, as R v Peters [2013] VSC 93 demonstrates, medical practitioners can lose their medical licence for misconduct and may also face criminal charges arising from the same incident/conduct which led to:
  • a complaint being lodged, which in turn
  • resulted in a disciplinary tribunal issuing a caution, suspending or deregistering the doctor for professional misconduct.
The same applies to other professions including company directors / office holders, dentists, lawyers, nurses, physiotherapists public servants and teachers.
 
There are many differences between administrative and criminal proceedings, but an important point is that the sanctions imposed differ substantially between the two systems. Under Australian law, a civil penalty is one imposed by courts or tribunals applying civil rather than criminal court processes. As noted by the Australian Law Reform Commission civil penalty provisions may:
..be similar to a criminal offence (for example, breaches of a director’s duties or publishing misleading material) and may involve the same or similar conduct, and the purpose of imposing a penalty may be to punish the offender, but the procedure by which the offender is sanctioned is based on civil court processes…
The Australian Law Reform Commission also notes that civil penalties can (and frequently do) encompass injunctions, banning orders, licence revocations and orders for reparation and compensation. As such, the penalties imposed by a relevant sporting tribunal for an ADRV (such as suspension from competition, fines etc) are similar in nature to the penalties imposed on members of other professions, and clearly cannot be characterised as criminal.  

The key point here is that for members of the professions discussed above, the same actions or conduct can lead to two proceedings (civil and criminal), and despite possibly sharing evidence, those proceedings remain separate with a different set of penalties, procedures, and most importantly, standards of proof.

Dual use of evidence

ASADA has in place information-sharing relationships with government agencies, law enforcement bodies and sporting administration bodies and can receive information from a variety of sources such as doping control field work, athlete whereabouts, scientific analysis of tests, and tip offs from the general public.

Any evidence uncovered by an ASADA (or police) investigation into doping may be shared and potentially used in sporting tribunal, civil and criminal proceedings, subject to any admissibility rules related to the particular evidence in the relevant proceeding. ASADA conducts investigations into suspected ADRVs in accordance with the Australian Government Investigations Standards (AGIS).

ASADA may choose to refer matters to AFP , which in turn would be responsible for preparing a brief for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Ms Perdikogiannis (the General Manager of Anti-Doping Programs and Legal Services at ASADA) was asked in the recent Senate inquiry into the ASADA Amendment Bill 2013 if ASADA would refer persons suspected of trafficking prohibited substance to a criminal agency. Her response was:
"Where the substances are illicit substances or substances that are covered by the criminal law, then that is something we would do."
This response reflects both the AGIS arrangements discussed above and the powers provided by subparagraphs 71(2)(e), (f), (fc), (fd) and (fe) of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 which allows ASADA to pass information (including personal information as defined in the Privacy Act 1988 collected as part of the anti-doping investigations to various law enforcement agencies. 
 
However, proposed subsection 13D(2) of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 (as amended) proposes to prevent the use of evidence obtained under a disclosure notice issued by ASADA in either criminal proceedings (other than proceedings for providing false or misleading information or documents) or civil proceedings not arising under the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Act 2006 and its regulations.
 
This protection is narrow in that it only prevents evidence obtained under a disclosure notice from being used in criminal proceedings. Evidence obtained through other investigatory mechanisms would still be able to be used in criminal and civil proceedings. This would arguably provide athletes with a certain (albeit narrow) measure of statutory protection from dual proceedings arising from the same conduct, something that many members of other professions do not currently possess.
 
In the next FlagPost, we will consider when an ADRV is also a crime in Australia and the sanctions imposed by the criminal justice system for those crimes.
 


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.

Add your comment

[Click to expand]




Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

Refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment indigenous Australians Sport illicit drugs gambling people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations health financing Asia Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA income management Industrial Relations emissions trading dental health Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention 43rd Parliament Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police people smuggling poker machines National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission slavery Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service constitution International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection Aviation debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment Census politics High Court skilled migration election results voting mental health Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS governance youth paid parental leave environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs Senate doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur Electoral reform political parties banking firearms public policy Population violence against women domestic violence China ADRV terrorism science research and development social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation accountability public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning Senators and Members United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs health reform Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing health system money laundering early childhood education Canada Financial sector UK Parliament national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity transparency Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration Australia Greens federal election 2010 servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries Hung Parliament social citizenship human rights emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency productivity human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia United Kingdom GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits ANZUS qantas counselling Korean peninsula

Show all
Show less
Back to top