Summary of report into allegations made against Martin Crowe

INQUIRY FOR NEW ZEALAND CRICKET BOARD INTO ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST NEW ZEALAND CAPTAIN MARTIN CROWE AND RELATED ISSUES.

REPORT BY THE HONOURABLE SIR IAN BARKER, Q.C. AND NICHOLAS DAVIDSON, Q.C.

Report dated 23 July 2001

Summary of Report

Martin Crowe played cricket for New Zealand between 1982 and 1995. He was captain in the years 1990 to 1994. He played 77 tests and 143 One Day International matches for New Zealand.

In November 2000, without warning or an opportunity to be heard, his name appeared in a Report made by the Central Bureau of Investigation of India ("CBI"), as an overseas player who had accepted money from an Indian bookmaker, M K Gupta, in return for information about "team composition, pitch, etc". The Report expressly recorded that Martin Crowe refused to "fix" any matches when asked to do so.

NZC established this Inquiry, to investigate these allegations. It was to operate independently of NZC, and to co-operate with Lord Condon's Inquiry for the International Cricket Council.

NZC through its Chair, Sir John Anderson, emphasised the independence of this Inquiry, and provided it with all necessary resources. The Inquiry had no powers to compel any attendance before it, or indeed provision of any information. It relied on co-operation.

Martin Crowe responded to the Report at the time by acknowledging he received money from a person whom he now understood to be Gupta, without realising he was a bookmaker. Martin Crowe said he thought he was to be paid for writing articles from a captain's perspective, relevant to the 1992 World Cup, for syndication in India.

From the outset, Martin Crowe through his Counsel, David Howman, said he would co-operate with the Inquiry and attend for interview. There was some public criticism of him, for stating as a condition that Gupta first come forward with his evidence, so that it could be tested in full.

The Inquiry does not share in that criticism. Martin Crowe's stance was entirely proper. Having been accused of associating with a known bookmaker for money, he was entitled to require that person to come forward before he gave his own evidence.

The first focus of this Inquiry was to have Gupta produce his evidence, and to establish what he was reported to have said, beyond the content of the CBI Report, which was written in the third person.

There were from the outset essential differences between the public statement Martin Crowe made, after publication of the CBI Report, and Gupta's "statement". These were:

* Martin Crowe denied that he knew the person with whom he dealt (assumed to be Gupta) was a bookmaker, until he was asked to fix a match. He said he was approached by a person whom he believed to represent a newspaper, to write articles for syndication in India.

* He denied that Gupta had ever been to his home and that of his (then) wife Simone Crowe, as Gupta alleged.

* He denied that he was introduced to Gupta by Arvinda de Silva of Sri Lanka.

* He denied being paid US$20,000 in cash, in an envelope, but said he agreed to a fee of US$3,000, for provision of information for newspaper articles.

The attempts to get Gupta before the Inquiry took several forms. Counsel Assisting the Inquiry, Timothy Gresson of Timaru, visited India in December 2000 with ACU representatives, and established liaison with the CBI. An attempt to interview Gupta on that occasion failed.

In due course, Gupta's allegations were obtained in other forms, first from the Report made to the Board of Control for Cricket in India by Mr K Madhaven, and then through the CBI, courtesy of Mr Sawani.

The Inquiry was then advised of a discussion between ACU officers in India, when they saw Gupta, who repeated to them the allegations contained in the CBI Report, and provided some more detail of his alleged lunch with Martin and Simone Crowe and whether Martin Crowe knew that Gupta was a bookmaker.

This Inquiry was prepared to meet Gupta wherever he chose, whether in India or elsewhere, and in conditions of absolute confidentiality as to the time and place of the meeting. It was prepared to interview him by videolink. Gupta was advised of this through the ACU on the Inquiry's behalf. He was also advised that a detailed list of questions prepared by it was held by Mr Sawani, with whom he could make contact. Gupta could have answered those questions by letter. While not ideal, this would have allowed him to substantiate his allegations, if he could have done so.

The Inquiry pursued other lines of enquiry, in particular to determine whether Gupta entered New Zealand at any time prior to or around the time of the World Cup. After an exhaustive search on behalf of the Inquiry, the New Zealand Immigration Service advised that there was no record of anyone using the Indian passport issued to Gupta having visited New Zealand in 1991 or 1992. Gupta apparently left India in September 1991 but there was no record of his entering New Zealand.

Frustrated by Gupta's refusal to co-operate, the ACU gave Gupta a deadline to respond by 1 July 2001. Gupta failed to do so except through lawyers acting for him who said that he would not respond.

At this point, Martin Crowe would have been entitled to refuse to come before the Inquiry. The Inquiry would have accepted that decision without criticism and it would have left Gupta's allegations as unsubstantiated except to the extent Martin Crowe acknowledged contact with him.

However, Martin Crowe still sought to tell his story, and have his credibility assessed. This was much to his credit. He was prepared to give his evidence under oath, but as there was no jurisdiction for this Inquiry to administer such an oath, he made a statutory declaration, to record the truth of his statements. The interview took place on 4 July 2001 in Auckland.

The Inquiry had earlier pursued an interview with Arvinda de Silva. De Silva wanted that interview to take place in Colombo, with his legal counsel present. With the co-operation of Desmond Fernando PC (President's Counsel), appointed by the Sri Lankan cricket authorities to investigate allegations against de Silva and Ranatunga, the Inquiry had questions put to de Silva. De Silva denied introducing Gupta to Martin Crowe, as Gupta alleged.

Because Simone Crowe was implicated in the narrative of Gupta's allegations, the Inquiry asked her to come before it. Despite being encouraged by Martin Crowe, she chose not to do so and gave reasons which the Inquiry accepted.

She provided a written statement which denied the allegations made by Gupta. She said that Gupta may have obtained information about her working in a "painting shop" when she spoke to a man called "Mukesh", as one of many people who called for Martin Crowe, particularly around the time of the World Cup. In small talk with "Mukesh" it is possible that she mentioned her occupation (interior designer) and her places of work.

Martin Crowe explained to the Inquiry that when he learned after one or two calls that the person with whom he was speaking by telephone was not a journalist but a bookmaker attempting to fix matches, he reacted with shock and disgust.

He spoke crudely and forcibly to this person and ended the conversation and all contact. Martin Crowe said he immediately spoke with Mark Greatbatch while in a state of shock, and told him what had occurred.

Mark Greatbatch confirmed what Martin Crowe had said. He remembered vividly Martin Crowe's shocked state at the time, and the reason for it.

The Inquiry had a good opportunity to assess Martin Crowe's credibility, and to consider all his evidence. It concluded that he has told the truth, publicly and before the Inquiry. Martin Crowe believed he was dealing with a journalist when he agreed to provide information for articles during the World Cup.

The fee agreed was US$3,000, approximately NZ$5,000 at the time, for about ten articles: such was an appropriate rate at the time. Martin Crowe denied having lunch with Gupta or meeting him in person at any time. Simone Crowe supports him in that statement.

These events all occurred at a time when Martin Crowe was under intense pressure. There had been significant issues surrounding his captaincy immediately before the World Cup, after an unsuccessful test series against England.

The Inquiry was provided with articles which demonstrated that he and Simone Crowe were subject to intense speculation about their marriage and to other intrusions into their personal life. He was under immense pressure, with the responsibilities of captain and batsman in a major international tournament. These circumstances must be reflected in any residual comment about his conduct.

Although the Inquiry considers he should as a matter of prudence have informed NZC of his agreement to provide articles to the alleged Indian journalist, that omission should be put in context.

While he was incautious in dealing with a "journalist" whom he did not know, the Inquiry concludes that Martin Crowe thought he was doing no more than providing information equivalent to what he supplied for articles in the "Evening Post" throughout this period.

That he did not tell NZC of the match fixing approach should also be seen in context. At the time, he had no knowledge of any such corrupt practice in cricket, nor the involvement of bookmakers, and he dismissed the approach with contempt.

Martin Crowe's incorrect assumption, that he had been paid when the story broke in November 2000, was understandable. The issue had not arisen between 1992 and 2000, so far as he was concerned.

Only then did he check to see if any bank credit could be identified as had been agreed with the "journalist". That enquiry, carried out by chartered accountants, revealed no sum approximating that which he agreed, or Gupta alleged. He could have avoided any such inquiry, simply by asserting a cash payment, or denying payment, had he something to hide.

The Inquiry has concluded that Martin Crowe was truthful, and that there is no evidence to support Gupta's allegations. Addressing the motives of a man such as Gupta, who has caused so much damage to the international game, is in the Inquiry's view a wasted exercise.

Gupta has, by his own admission, been involved in serious corrupt practice, whatever its classification in Indian law. Any speculation about Gupta's motives for making false allegations should be measured against that fundamental fact.

There was scope for this Inquiry to treat the allegations as unproven. Such would have been a proper conclusion and fair to Martin Crowe. He chose however to have his credibility assessed, despite that fact. Readers of this Report should recognise the significance of that stance, and the finding of credibility in his favour.

By this Report, Martin Crowe is cleared of any wrongful practice. His reputation should stand untarnished.

Inquiry Panel Address:

C/- N R W Davidson QC

PO Box 2929

Christchurch

New Zealand

Phone: 0064 3 366 1467

Facsimile: 0064 3 366 7653

Email: nrwdavidson@clear.net.nz