Disciplinary Commission (“The Commission”)
In the matter of Mr. Michael BENTLEY - Case ID: 8175930M
Hearing Summary including Written Reasons
1. This is the hearing summary and includes written reasons for the decision of the
Disciplinary Commission which sat on Monday 6th July 2015.
2. The Commission members were Mr. T. Edwards (FA-appointed Chairman), Mr. T.
Cobb (Norfolk County Football Association) and Mr. M. Kay (Essex County Football
Association & FA-appointed).
3. Mr. M. Carpenter of Norfolk County FA (Norfolk FA) acted as Secretary to the
Commission. Mr. M. Lemmon of Norfolk FA was also in attendance as an observer as
part of his training and development.
4. Mr. Bentley had been charged under FA Rule E3(2) – Improper Conduct –
aggravated by a person’s Ethnic Origin, Colour, Race, Nationality, Faith, Gender,
Sexual Orientation or Disability.
The charge was further detailed as
“It is alleged that at the above mentioned fixture, you used abusive and/or insulting
words towards an opponent contrary to FA Rule E3 (1).
It is further alleged that this breach of FA Rule E3 (2) is an “Aggravated Breach” in
that the following phrase was used: Chink, You chink, You chinky fucker.
The charge followed the alleged conduct of Mr. Bentley during the match Holt
Reserves vs Plumstead Rangers FC First played on 21st March 2015.
5. On 24th March Norfolk FA received an e-mailed complaint from Mr. Adam Batchelor,
secretary of Plumstead Rangers FC. Mr. Batchelor stated that one of his players, ChiChung Lee, had been racially abused during the match by the Holt No. 9 player,
Michael Bentley.
6. Mr. Batchelor included with that e-mailed complaint a statement from Mr. Lee dated
22nd March in which he stated that, “During play in the first half of the game, No. 9
muttered words which I heard the derogatory term “CHINK” was used. I chose to
ignore this as play was still happening.” He added that later during a stoppage in
play, “…again I heard him mutter the word “CHINK” which was no doubt aimed at
me. I asked him, ”Do you want to say that again?” in which he replied “You Chink.” I
repeated the question again, in turn he repeated, “You Chink”, in hope that No. 9
would say it loud enough so the referee could witness the abuse…” Mr. Lee went on
to say that the Holt No. 7 player (who he thought was that team’s manager) asked
him what had happened and, “..I informed him and subsequently he subbed No. 9
off..”
7. As a result of the complaint Norfolk FA undertook an investigation during which
statements were obtained from: Mr. Adam Batchelor, secretary of Plumstead Rangers FC;
 Mr. Adam Blake, player with Plumstead Reserves;
 Mr. Richard Taylor, player/manager of Plumstead Reserves;
 Mr. Matthew Baker, player with Plumstead Reserves;
 Mr. Ryan Higgins, player with Plumstead Reserves;
 Mr. Granville Yaxley, the match referee.
8. The statements from Messrs. Blake, Baker & Higgins corroborated Mr. Lee’s version
of events. Messrs. Taylor & Yaxley stated that they had not heard the alleged
abusive comments but that (in Mr. Taylor’s case) Mr. Lee’s reaction had been seen
and (in Mr. Yaxley’s case) an allegation had been reported to him by a Plumstead
player at the time. Mr. Batchelor was present at the match but had not heard the
alleged comments either.
9. At the conclusion of the investigation the charge was raised against Mr. Bentley. The
“Acknowledgement of Misconduct” form was returned by Mr. Bentley on which he
pleaded “Not Guilty” and requested a personal hearing.
10. A written response to the charge had been submitted by Mr. David Wright,
secretary of Holt United FC, in which he re-iterated Mr. Bentley’s wish to plead “not
guilty.” Mr Wright also included statements from Mr. Bentley and 3 other players
from the Holt team, Messrs. Aaron Sands, Jack May and Jack Heath.
11. In his written statement, dated 23rd May, Mr. Bentley acknowledged that there had
been an incident involving himself and Mr. Lee. He said that during that incident he
had called Mr. Lee, “you fucking dirty cheat,” and twice said “you cheat.” He said
that those comments had been in reaction to Mr. Lee stopping him retrieving the
ball during a stoppage in play and Mr. Lee having pushed him in the back and calling
him, “fucking twat.” He denied having used the word “chink.”
12. The written statements from Messrs. Sands, May and Heath corroborated Mr.
Bentley’s version of events.
13. The Commission convened at 7.00 pm to hear the matter. All documents, including
written statements, had been supplied in advance to all its members, who had
studied them in detail.
14. In the days up to and including that of the hearing the Commission had been
informed that, due to various reasons, Messrs. Batchelor, Higgins and May would
not be able to attend the hearing to give evidence.
15. Before the hearing started Mr. Carpenter informed the Commission that although
Messrs. Blake and Baker were in attendance both had indicated that, whilst they
were content to answer questions from members of the Commission, they were
reluctant to answer questions from Mr. Bentley. Mr. Carpenter had explained the
hearing procedures to them but they remained reluctant to give evidence.
16. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Baker were invited into the hearing room. The Commission
chairman explained in detail the procedures to be adopted and informed both
witnesses that, in the interests of fairness, Mr. Bentley must be given the chance to
ask any questions of them concerning the facts within their written statements and
other relevant issues. Both witnesses indicated that they would be happy to answer
questions posed by Commission members but not from Mr. Bentley. They also
stated that they would be uncomfortable being in Mr. Bentley’s presence. In answer
to a direct question asked of each of them by the Commission chairman both Mr.
Blake and Mr. Baker stated they would not stay to give evidence in person. They
were advised that appropriate weight would therefore be placed on their written
statements as neither Mr. Bentley nor the Commission could test that evidence by
asking them questions. Both said they understood the situation and left the
premises.
17. The hearing then commenced at approximately 7.30 pm. Present at the hearing
were the following witnesses/participants:

Mr. Yaxley;

Mr. Lee;

Mr. Taylor;

Mr. Bentley;

Mr. Sands;

Mr. Heath;
Mr. Wright, secretary of Holt United FC, was present as an observer.
18. In his verbal evidence Mr. Yaxley confirmed the content of his statement and in
response to questions asked of him by Mr. Bentley and members of the Commission
he indicated on the pitch board the relative positions of himself, the injured player
he was with and other players. He also said that the alleged abuse had been
reported to him by a Plumstead player and shortly afterwards by another player
from Plumstead. Mr. Lee was not one of those players.
19. In his verbal evidence Mr. Lee confirmed the content of his statement and in
response to questions asked of him by Mr. Bentley and members of the Commission
he stated he was certain that he had been called “chink” by Mr. Bentley and had not
misheard the word “cheat.” He also stated that he had become angry and started to
walk towards Mr. Bentley shouting at him to repeat the abuse. He agreed that he
was held back by two other players.
20. In his verbal evidence Mr. Taylor confirmed the content of his statement and in
response to questions asked of him by Mr. Bentley and members of the Commission
he stated that he had not heard the alleged abusive comments but had heard Mr.
Lee shouting at Mr. Bentley asking him to repeat the words. He also indicated on
the pitch board his recollection of the relative positions of himself, the referee and
other players.
21. For varying reasons, the County FA witnesses Messrs. Higgins, Batchelor, Blake and
Baker were not present to give evidence at the hearing. Their statements were not
read out as they had been previously served on Mr. Bentley as part of the bundle of
papers which accompanied the charge document and had also provided to the
members of the Commission. Mr. Bentley was advised that, due to their absence,
neither he nor members of the Commission were able to ask any questions of them
in order to clarify or test their evidence and appropriate weight would be placed
upon the written statements.
22. Mr. Bentley was then given the opportunity to respond verbally to the charge. He
confirmed the content of his written response to the charge and said he was sure
that he had used the word “cheat” and not “chink.” He indicated on the pitch board
his recollection of the relative oppositions of himself, Mr. Lee, the referee and other
players. He also stated that he considered Mr. Lee’s actions in stopping him
retrieving the ball as cheating.
23. In response to questions asked of him by members of the Commission Mr. Bentley
said that his manager had taken him off because he feared that he would be
targeted by the opposition as tempers were raised at that point. However he said
that when told by the manager at halftime about the allegation he explained that he
had said “cheat,” the manager accepted his word and let him resume playing in the
second half. He said that he approached Mr. Lee to explain he had misheard him but
Mr. Lee refused to shake his hand.
24. In his verbal evidence Mr. Heath confirmed the content of his statement. However,
he indicated that there was an error in it as it included a reference to his having
been pushed in the back by Mr. Lee. He informed the Commission that he and Mr.
Bentley had prepared their statements together and that he had mistakenly
included some of Mr. Bentley’s statement in his own. In response to questions
asked of him by Mr. Bentley and members of the Commission he indicated his
recollection of the relative positions of himself, Mr. Bentley, Mr. Lee and other
players at the time of the incident. When asked to clarify the situation when he and
Mr. Bentley wrote their statements he confirmed they had been in the same room
but added that each had recollected the events separately.
25. In his verbal evidence Mr. Sands confirmed the content of his statement and in
response to questions asked of him by Mr. Bentley and members of the Commission
he stated he normally played for Holts first team, but as his team’s fixtures had
been completed, he had decided to watch the reserves team play. He said that he
was “pretty certain” that Mr. Lee had called Mr. Bentley “fucking twat” and Mr.
Bentley had replied with, “fucking dirty cheat.” He estimated that at the time of the
exchange he was 15 – 20 yards away from both players. In response to a question
from the Commission he said that he had written his statement at his house and noone else was present at the time.
26. Mr. May was not able to attend the hearing due to his being on holiday. Mr. Bentley
was advised that the members of the Commission had read it and would consider its
content in support of his response. He was also advised that, due to Mr. May’s
absence neither he nor members of the Commission were able to ask any questions
of him in order to clarify or test his evidence and therefore appropriate weight
would be placed upon that written statement.
27. Having heard all the evidence Mr. Bentley was asked whether he had received a fair
hearing (which he said he had). He was also invited to make a closing submission. All
parties were then requested to leave the hearing room whilst the Commission
considered the matter.
28. Having considered all the available evidence the Commission found that the E3(2)
charge had not been proven.
29. In coming to that decision the Commission found that:
the referee had stated he had not heard any abusive comments but that the
matter had been reported to him at the time;

according to the date on it Mr. Lee had written his statement the day after
the match and it was the reported to Norfolk FA through his club 2 days later;

Mr. Lee was clear what he believed he had heard and who had said it;

Mr. Lee’s reaction to what Mr. Bentley had said indicated that he believed he
had been racially abused in it being a reference to his nationality;

Mr. Lee had been asked by the Holt No. 7 player what had happened. He had
told him what Mr. Bentley had said and that resulted in Mr. Bentley being
substituted;

Mr. Lee presented himself as a reliable witness who gave compelling
evidence as to what he believed Mr. Bentley had said to him;

in his written statement Mr. Blake was clear what he had heard Mr. Bentley
say and his relative distance from him. Mr Blake’s refusal to give evidence in
person meant that his evidence was not able to be tested by either Mr.
Bentley or the Commission;

it was not assisted by Mr. Batchelor’s written evidence;

in his written statement Mr. Baker he was not clear whether he had heard
the alleged abuse and his refusal to give evidence in person meant that his
evidence was not clarified or tested by either Mr. Bentley or the Commission;

Mr. Higgins stated that, at the start of the second half, he had asked Mr.
Bentley what he had said to Mr. Lee in the first half and had been told by
him, “A chink.” However, due his absence the Commission could not test that
evidence further;

Mr. Bentley presented himself as a calm and reliable witness who gave clear
evidence of what he maintained he had said and that he believed Mr. Lee had
misheard him;

Mr. Bentley stated that his manager had told him at halftime what Mr. Lee
had alleged he had said, was surprised by that allegation and tried to speak
to Mr. Lee to clarify what he had said;

it did not find Mr. Heath to be a reliable witness and did not place much
weight on his evidence, especially as his written statement had been
prepared at the same time as Mr. Bentley’s;

it questioned the fact that, whilst Mr. Heath could not recollect other facts
relevant to the match, he claimed (some 2 months afterwards) to remember
the exact words allegedly used by Mr. Bentley;

it did not find Mr. Sands to be a reliable witness;

due to the unreliability of the evidence from other witnesses it was left with
having to decide whether to prefer the evidence of either Mr. Lee or Mr.
Bentley over the other. In the circumstances it was not able to prefer one
person’s evidence over the other’s;
30. Mr. Bentley was called back into the room and advised of the Commission’s
decision. He was also advised that all monies paid in respect of the hearing would
be refunded to him.
T. Edwards
Disciplinary Commission Chairman
9th July 2015