Barnes libel case Keith Johnson (cricket administrator)

barnes @ age of 16

johnson s claim of tour harmony , player loyalty in 1948 thrown different light events less 4 years later. opening batsman sid barnes—a core member of 1948 team—was seeking return test cricket. barnes known being eccentric self-promoter. during 1948 tour, barnes organised multitude of business deals while not playing cricket, , avoided paying customs duties on enormous amount of goods acquired in britain disembarking @ melbourne instead of sydney.

barnes made himself unavailable first-class cricket, preferring pursue business interests instead, , ridiculed fee paid 1949–50 tour of south africa. wrote column sydney s daily telegraph, titled or lump , in lampooned administration of game.

however, in 1951–52, barnes made return cricket, , sought selection in national team play west indies during 1951–52 australian season. australia had been unable find reliable opener accompany barnes s former partner arthur morris. australia s batsmen struggled in first 2 tests, , before third test, barnes scored 107 against victoria, putting on 210 in partnership morris new south wales. sporting globe in melbourne had presciently predicted board object if selectors chose barnes.

barnes duly selected third test panel of three, chaired former captain bradman, choice vetoed australian board of control reasons outside of cricket . bradman 1 of 4 board members support barnes s selection, while 10 objected, including johnson.

the matches took place , barnes did not play. unable find out why had been excluded , resigned making appearance before board @ next meeting in september 1952 ask explanation.

in meantime, team not announced @ scheduled time due delay caused veto. journalists deduced story , barnes became cause célèbre many weeks, missing remaining tests. speculation abounded nature of supposed misdeeds. these included jumping turnstile @ ground when forgot player s pass, insulting royal family, theft team-mates, drunkenness, stealing car, parking car in else s space, or barnes had lampooned board in narration accompanying home movies made of 1948 tour. in later years, file of unknown authorship regarding barnes s behaviour deposited in nswca library. accused barnes of allowing young spectators enter playing arena field ball instead of doing himself, , of denigrating umpires cupping hands on eyes , showing dissent implying blind.

barnes continued score heavily, , during 1 match, crossed paths johnson, reportedly apologised him exclusion team. however, johnson advised barnes keep quiet , nothing , added come out of right, certainty 1953 trip [to england] .

on 24 april 1952, letter appeared in sydney s daily mirror jacob raith, baker stanmore in sydney, in response letter barnes s friend stacy atkin, condemned board vetoing barnes s selection. raith s letter said board must have had reason exclude barnes.

the board impartial body of cricket administrators made of men have given outstanding service game. must abundantly clear not have excluded mr barnes australian xi capriciously , matter of sufficiently serious nature. in declining meet request publish reasons, board may acting kindly towards him.

the board of control had granted power exclude player national team on grounds other cricket ability following poor behaviour of members of 1912 team toured england. instead, barnes sued raith libel , engaged top sydney lawyer, jack shand—described haigh foremost trial lawyer of day — represent him, aim of uncovering reasons exclusion. bradman felt raith s letter premeditated set-up give barnes pretext instigate trial. libel trial, held in august 1952, sensation, , johnson, still member of board, central figure. according haigh, board, not raith, in dock .

it emerged during trial raith had no particular knowledge of workings of board. series of administrators came forward barnes had reportedly misbehaved on 1948 tour, though johnson s official report manager had made no mention of disharmony. aubrey oxlade, chairman of board , 1 of 4 board members voted ratify barnes s selection, said batsman s indiscretions childish things , not serious @ . later, frank cush, board member had supported barnes s inclusion, replied none @ when asked if there legitimate reasons excluding barnes. selector chappie dwyer said have high opinion of him cricketer ... , have no objection him man .

johnson called witness, and, under questioning shand, different story came out. johnson agreed written report of 1948 tour had said team had behaved in manner befitting worthy representatives of australia , on , off field conduct exemplary . however, in verbal report, johnson said had drawn board s attention various misdemeanours barnes that, in opinion, sufficiently serious warrant player s exclusion future australian test sides. johnson said barnes had shown general reluctance savouring of authority . misdeeds included taking pictures australian team presented royal family on playing arena during test match @ lord s, asking permission travel alone in england (barnes family living in scotland @ time), , abducting twelfth man ernie toshack play tennis during match @ northampton on court 300 yards pavilion . under cross-examination, johnson said barnes s taking pictures of royal family @ lord s serious of these misdemeanours. admitted had not known barnes had received permission mcc , royal family s protocol chief take photos. shand established barnes had shown films raise money various charities. further showed barnes had not agitated when reminded of policy against players meeting family members on tour. however, johnson believed cumulative effect of misdeeds warranted omission team , saw no problem in fact verbal advice board recommending barnes exclusion @ odds written report on 1948 tour. under pressure shand, johnson admitted don t write think . according haigh, shand effortlessly twisted him [johnson] inside out .

shand: admit 1 of 2 things: either report board or statement that state of mind, thought conduct serious left out of team—one or other deliberate lie?
johnson: no.
shand: think saying. 1 or other deliberate , wicked lie.
johnson: no.
shand: how have thought had behaved in manner befitting worthy representatives of australia , on , off field conduct exemplary if thought conduct serious warrant omission team? how reconcile two?
johnson: after lot of thought.
shand: not asking lot of thought.
johnson: have report on team whole, , opinion.
shand: admit applies every 1 of them.
johnson: yes.
shand: , yet 1 of them guilty of conduct serious in opinion warrant omission ... these reports circulated.
johnson: yes.

...

shand: , misleading report?
johnson: yes.
shand: still claim responsible person?
johnson: yes.
shand: consider reasonable mislead various state associations?
johnson: in case that, yes.
shand: depending on circumstances have no misgivings misleading people?
johnson: not mislead people.
shand: did, didn t you—the state bodies, barnes?
johnson: yes.

shand had reduced johnson tears, having caused senior police officer cry during hearing of royal commission year before. colleague of shand s recalled capacity of insinuation in tone annoy , bring witness antagonism . shand asked johnson hypothetical case of barnes being selected in future. johnson evaded matter of whether select player until shand asked him assume barnes in best possible form , best cricketer in australia , johnson replied not.

on trial s second day, after barnes had taken witness stand, raith s counsel withdrew client s defence. had been task, said, prove plea allegation in raith s letter true, , barnes had not been excluded capriciously. counsel remarked seldom in history of libel actions has such plea failed , utterly. case ended @ point; barnes vindicated, , raith s counsel issued him public apology. according fellow administrator alan barnes, johnson wide-open type of bloke vulnerable manoeuvring. colleagues advised johnson hire lawyer before case started, refused, saying libel case merely sporting matter, not legal one.