The case revolves around Muhammad Saqlain, a professional hockey player and captain of the Pakistan national team, who appealed a decision by the International Hockey Federation (FIH) following an incident during a match between Pakistan and Australia at the Four Nations Hamburg Championship in 2005. During the game, Saqlain's stick made contact with Australian player Craig Victory's face, causing serious injuries. The FIH Judicial Commission found Saqlain guilty of dangerous conduct, suspending him for three matches and imposing a €1000 fine. The key legal issues addressed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) included whether the application of game rules could be subject to judicial review, procedural fairness, and the discretionary powers of federations in imposing sanctions. The CAS ruled that while the application of game rules is generally not subject to judicial review, exceptions exist when sanctions affect judicial interests and legal questions are raised. It also found no evidence of bias, even though an FIH official was a compatriot of the accused. The CAS upheld the FIH's discretion to consider a player's previous behavior when determining sanctions, clarifying that this does not constitute double jeopardy but reflects a pattern of conduct.
The FIH Judicial Commission relied on witness testimonies, including that of the Tournament Director and Reserve Umpire, who deemed Saqlain's action deliberate. The Commission excluded evidence of prior incidents when determining guilt but considered them in sentencing, noting Saqlain's history of similar conduct. Saqlain argued that the injury resulted from Victory's tackle, but the Commission rejected this, emphasizing the dangerous nature of his stick movement. The CAS ultimately affirmed the FIH's decision, reinforcing the principle that federations have broad discretion in disciplinary matters, provided procedural fairness is maintained. Saqlain initially alleged bias, particularly against the FIH Secretary General, an Australian national, but later narrowed his claim to the Secretary General alone. The CAS Panel examined the FIH Statutes and Bye-Laws, concluding there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The Panel noted that the Secretary General chose the least influential option by referring the case to the Judicial Commission, ensuring impartiality in the panel's composition.
The parties agreed on the Judicial Commission's broad discretionary power under Article 19 of the FIH Statutes & Bye-Laws regarding sanctions but disagreed on whether past incidents could be considered in determining penalties. The Judicial Commission clarified that previous incidents were not used to establish guilt but were relevant in assessing the severity of sanctions. The CAS Panel upheld this view, stating that considering past behavior does not constitute double jeopardy, as it merely informs the sanctioning body about a pattern of conduct. However, the Panel found it unnecessary to rely on prior incidents in this case, as the seriousness of the act—endangering fair play and physical integrity—justified the imposed suspension. The Panel also addressed procedural fairness under Article 21.1(c) of the FIH Statutes & Bye-Laws, ensuring the accused had access to relevant materials and a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Saqlain expressed satisfaction with these procedural safeguards during the hearing. Ultimately, the CAS Panel upheld the FIH Judicial Commission's decision, confirming Saqlain's three-match suspension and ordering him to pay EUR 1,000 in associated costs. The ruling emphasized the importance of maintaining fair play and deterring misconduct in sports while affirming the discretionary authority of the sanctioning body.