Reifer’s attorneys challenge CWI charges; slam treatment of Barbados skipper

The attorneys-at-law representing embattled Barbados Pride captain, Raymon Reifer, have written to Cricket West Indies (CWI) urging them to withdraw the charges against him on the grounds that he cannot now get a “fair and impartial hearing.”

In a letter addressed to CWI’s Acting Chief Executive Officer Lynford Inverary dated December 6, 2024, attorney Philip Nicholls, who, in association with King’s Counsel Sir Patterson Cheltenham, is acting on behalf of Reifer and the Barbados Cricket Association (BCA), raised serious concerns regarding the manner in which Reifer had been treated by CWI.

Reifer, along with Jamaica Scorpions captain, John Campbell, were handed Level 3 charges for their roles in last month’s CG United Super50 final that was forfeited after they failed to be present for the toss.

In a statement released by CWI on Friday, it was announced that Campbell had been given a reduced four-match suspension after accepting the charges.

At the time, CWI’s Director of Cricket, Miles Bascombe, said Reifer had not yet responded to the charges.

He said if Reifer did not respond the matter would be dealt with by the disciplinary committee.

“In your release, you again not so much as imply, but state outright that Mr. Reifer has not responded to the charge levelled against him, which was the same charge to which Campbell has been sanctioned for. This is not correct,” Nicholls maintained.

“In fact, given the additional comments attributed to your Director of Cricket on the matter, a reasonable reader of your press release, which appeared shortly after release on social media including Facebook and the number one cricket site on the internet of ESPN Cricinfo, would conclude that as soon as you can get your hands on Mr. Reifer, a same or worse fate would befall him.”

Additionally, Nicholls argued that CWI only gave Reifer 12 hours to respond to a charge that was laid on November 24 at around 11:00 hours, which only came to his attention on his return from Trinidad that morning and he was leaving the island the next day.

He said in so doing, CWI denied Reifer the opportunity to consult with the BCA or seek legal advice prior to a response within the time demanded.

Nicholls further took issue with the fact that while the charge against Reifer and Campbell had a recommended penalty of a ban for seven matches, the final sanction imposed on Campbell was as a result of a plea agreement negotiated between CWI and the West Indies Players’ Association (WIPA).

“My clients are naturally disappointed that you not only have seen fit to impose a sanction on Mr. Campbell, but especially to announce it publicly knowing full well that Mr. Reifer is contesting the validity of the charge.”

“What is worse is that the comments of Mr. Bascombe would now make that reasonable person conclude that Mr. Reifer awaits at least the same fate, but in all probability a lengthier ban, despite the fact that in the charge he is advised that he is entitled to a hearing if he disputes the charge,” Nicholls stated in the letter.

“In light of this clear prejudice against a fair and impartial hearing for my client, may I once again reiterate my call for the charge against Mr. Reifer to be withdrawn for the grounds outlined in my letter to you of December 3, 2024.

“I am sure that your attorneys will advise that even if there was no response the only two options presented to Mr. Reifer of guilty or not, the correct and sensible act would be to summon him to a hearing and note that he has pleaded not guilty,” he further added. (Sportsmax).