Lucas Paqueta was cleared of four counts of spot-fixing
The Football Association’s case against Lucas Paqueta has been criticised by the independent commission that cleared the West Ham United player of four charges of spot-fixing.
The full written reasons, published today, said the FA’s decision to call its in-house betting investigator rather than an independent expert as chief witness was “an obvious flaw” in its efforts to prosecute the Brazil international.
Paqueta, 27, was cleared of spot-fixing by the commission last month, almost two years after the FA first began investigating suggestions that he had deliberately incurred yellow cards.
The commission found it “concerning” that the FA’s lead counsel Jonathan Laidlaw KC said the governing body disagreed with its main witness, Tom Astley, describing betting patterns as “highly orchestrated”, whereas Astley “stuck doggedly” to that view.
“The clear appearance given to the Commission was that the FA was not altogether certain what case it was presenting against the Player,” the written reasoning stated.
The commission agreed with the argument advanced by Paqueta’s legal team, led by barrister Nick De Marco KC and Level Law partner Alastair Campbell, that the betting data was not consistent with spot-fixing due to the large number of different gamblers and the relatively small stakes being wagered. In total, 253 bettors staked almost £47,000, winning around £167,000.
FA won’t appeal commission’s Paqueta verdict
It also questioned the independence of the FA’s witness on Paqueta’s in-game behaviour, Jack Johnson of Stats Perform Integrity Services, which has an ongoing business relationship with the governing body.
The commission preferred the testimony of the player’s witnesses, his former West Ham manager David Moyes and ex-referee Mark Clattenburg, who said Paqueta’s on-field actions in the four games in question were “entirely within the normal range of actions for this player”.
Paqueta was found guilty of two counts of not co-operating with the investigation for refusing to answer questions in two interviews. However, the commission said it was surprised that the FA did not take up the offer to question Paqueta once he had received requested disclosures.
“The commission wishes to record its surprise that at the investigation stage if what were clearly serious matters which could, and did, lead to serious charges which in turn led to a Commission hearing lasting 20 days, the FA were apparently not interested in what the Player had to say, notwithstanding his stance, taken on advice, in the first interview,” it added.
The FA said it did not plan to appeal. “The FA is committed to ensuring that the integrity of football is maintained, and full and thorough investigations will always be conducted into serious allegations of rule breaches,” it said in a statement.