In the Matter of The Football Association -v- Case History:-

In the Matter of
The Football Association

-v-
LAMIN BOJANG (-1067725) a registered player with Sunderland

University FC, Durham County Football Association Limited.

Written Reasons for Disciplinary Commission Decision.

Case History:-

1. Lamin Bojang has been charged with an offence arising out of a game on 5th March
2014 between York St John FC and Sunderland University FC. It is alleged that he
used abusive and discriminatory language in a comment directed towards the refer-
ee. The referee subsequently reported the matter to Durham County Football Asso-
ciation who, in turn and quite properly, reported the matter to the Football Associa-
tion, Wembley. After due and proper enquiry, Durham County FA instituted disci-
plinary proceedings against Lamin Bojang alleging a breach of Rule E3(1) aggra-
vated by E3(2).

2. A hearing was fixed for Tuesday 23rd of September 2014. The Commission Mem-
bers were Mr. Ron Coleman, Mr. Chris Tindale and Mr. Robert Anthony QC (who
chaired the proceedings). Mr. John Topping of Durham County Football Associa-
tion Limited acted as Secretary to the Commission. The Commission was conduct-
ed by means of a telephone conference facility.

3. The Secretary to the Commission confirmed that intimation of the charge was made
to the player’s club at University of Sunderland. The club had returned the pro-
forma plea in which a club official had inserted a tick into the box pleading guilty.

1 of 5

However, that club representative explained on the form that the player had failed
to respond to the Sports Office at the University. Accordingly, although the form
purported to tender a plea of guilty to this charge, in the interests of a fair hearing
we proceeded on the basis that the charge was not admitted.

Evidence tendered by the County FA :-

4. We had the benefit of a report from the referee.

The referee’s report stated :-

“In the first half the player named Lamin Bojang was cautioned by me for
dissent towards me. As I was preparing for the second half kick off, I was
standing in the centre circle and overheard the player shout “this referee
is a little Indian prick”. For this reason, I sent him off. His team mates and
his coach (Gareth Wade) were around to confirm that is what he said. I
consider this to be racial abuse and was very upset by the incident. The
players from both were supportive and allowed me to recuperate before the
second half resumed. I would hope strict disciplinary actions are taken
against the player and/or team.”

No further evidence was tendered on behalf of the County FA.

Evidence tendered by the player or on his behalf.

5. Because the player did not respond to his club in relation to the alleged offence,
there was no statement or other evidence submitted on his behalf.

Our decision.

2 of 5

6. In a Commission such as this, the assessment of the evidence is entirely a matter for
the Commission members. We have to assess the credibility of a witness (that is
whether a witness is telling the truth) and the reliability of the witness (that is
whether, even although a witness may be attempting to tell the truth their evidence
might not be relied upon.). It is solely for the members of this Commission to de-
cide which evidence to accept and which evidence to reject. Having decided which
evidence we accept and reject, we then have to decide if, on the balance of probabil-
ities, the alleged breach of the FA Rules is established. Corroboration of the alleged
breach of FA Rules is not essential.

7. In this case we discussed the evidence available to us. Having done so, we had no
reason to disbelieve the evidence put forward by the referee. There was no compet-
ing evidence advanced by the player or his club.

8. We unanimously concluded that the motivation behind the abusive comments was
an intention to offend and cause abuse by reason of nationality. Accordingly, we
were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence was established and
which fell into the category of Rule E3(1) aggravated in terms of Rule E3(2).

Findings of Fact.

9. We made the following findings of fact:-

 On 5th March 2014, the player, Lamin Bojang, was a registered player with Sun-
derland University FC. He was active in play for his team in a game against
York St. John FC.

 As the referee was preparing to commence play for the second half of the game,
he was positioned in the centre circle. The player, Lamin Bojang, then stated
“this referee is a little Indian prick”. He stated that in a voice loud enough for the
referee to hear it.

3 of 5

 The referee was very upset by the comment which had been directed towards
him.

 The comment was abusive towards the referee and was intended to offend by
reason of the referee’s nationality.

 Lamin Bojang is in breach of FA Rule E3(1) aggravated in terms of Rule E3(2).

Player’s record of previous misconduct

10.We were advised by the Secretary to the Commission that the player had no record
of previous misconduct or breach of FA Rules. This was his first disciplinary of-
fence

Submissions in mitigation.

11. The player had not submitted anything in mitigation on his own behalf. However,
on his behalf, we noted that he had never previously breached Rule E3(1) with a
discriminatory aggravation in terms of Rule E3(2) which was the only mitigatory
factor on the player’s behalf.

The appropriate penalty.

12.The Commission Members then required to consider the appropriate penalty. In
considering the appropriate penalty, the Commission Members discussed the severi-
ty of the offence. We balanced the severity of the offence with the mitigatory ele-
ment referred to above. The Commission Members also observed that the player
had failed to respond to the charge and therefore had not shown any expression or
remorse or apology for his conduct.

4 of 5

13.Normally, in respect of a first offence in breach of Rule E3(1) aggravated by Rule
E3(2), the Disciplinary Commission must impose a minimum of a five match sus-
pension from all football. However, there are exceptions in terms of Rule E3(4).
One such exception relates to an offence in which the discriminatory conduct re-
lates to nationality only. In that event, that minimum suspension is not mandatory.
However, a five match suspension or more remains a discretionary penalty within
the Commission’s power to impose.

14.In the above circumstances we considered (whether mandatory or discretionary)
that the appropriate punishment was a five match suspension from all football with
a £35.00 fine.

15.Given the nature of the offence in terms of Rule E3(7) the player will be subject to
an education programme, the details of which will be provided to the player by the
Association.

16.As this was a non personal hearing conducted by telephone conference, no award of
costs is appropriate.

17.There is a right of Appeal against the decision in accordance with FA Regulations

Mr. Ron Coleman
Mr. Chris Tindale and
Mr. Robert Anthony QC (Chairman)

23rd September 2014

5 of 5