Assessment

Yes — and in practice, this is the expected approach. Counsel Assisting acts on behalf of the sporting body, and in the overwhelming majority of cases will support the sanctions that the body has proposed. The Board has already considered the circumstances and determined what it considers to be the appropriate outcome; your role is to persuade the Commissioner that the Board's position is justified — grounded in the seriousness of the breach, the sanctioning framework, and the specific aggravating factors. To depart from the sporting body's proposed sanction would be unusual and would generally only arise in quite extreme circumstances — for example, where the evidence reveals matters significantly more serious than what the Board had before it, or where the framework clearly supports a sanction beyond what was originally proposed. Unless you have a strong and well‐reasoned basis for departing from the CA Board's position, most Counsel Assisting submissions will treat that position as both the starting point and the destination, and focus their advocacy on demonstrating why it is the right outcome.

Yes. You are welcome to use footnotes instead of, or in addition to, an index of sources at the end of your submission. Either approach is acceptable. Formal AGLC4 citation is not required — a simple, consistent format is sufficient. For example: i. CNN Sports report, March 27 2018 [hyperlink]. The key is that your references are clear and allow the reader to locate the source if needed. Keep in mind, however, that this is a sanctioning submission, not a research essay. The need for extensive referencing is limited. Cite sources where they genuinely support a factual claim or provide authority for a key proposition, but do not over‐reference at the expense of advocacy. Your word count is tight, and every sentence should be working towards persuasion — not cataloguing materials.

Yes — and it can be effective when used well. Quoting a prominent figure, commentator, or stakeholder who uses strong language can capture the gravity of the situation or reflect a widely held view in a way that lends weight to your submission. The key is to use such quotes sparingly and for a clear rhetorical purpose: to reinforce an argument you are already making, not to substitute for your own analysis. A well‐placed quote can be powerful; a submission that strings together the words of others, however forceful, will read as derivative rather than persuasive. The Commissioner is interested in your reasoning, your structure, and your advocacy. Deploy quotations strategically — as a complement to your argument, not as its foundation.

No. You should submit only your written plea (and the required AI Use Statement, if applicable). There is no need to attach the Code of Conduct, the scenario materials, media reports, or any other supporting documents. The Commissioner is taken to be fully familiar with all relevant materials — your task is to make submissions that stand on their own, drawing on and referring to those materials as needed within the body of your plea. Attaching external documents will not attract additional marks and is unnecessary.

A plea of mitigation or aggravation is a formal submission made after a breach has been admitted or proven. By the time you are writing this plea, the participant has either admitted breach or been found to have breached the relevant Code or Policy. The only remaining question is what sanction should be imposed. If you represent the Player, you prepare a plea of mitigation. If you act as Counsel Assisting, you prepare a plea of aggravation. Your submission should be focused, disciplined, and directed squarely at sanction — not liability.

A defence challenges whether the breach occurred at all. Mitigation (or aggravation) accepts the breach and argues about the appropriate sanction. In this assessment, liability is not in issue. If any part of your submission reads as though you are contesting breach — it will be treated as a fundamental misunderstanding of the task.

No. This is an individual task. You are not paired with or competing against another student.

Yes. You must clearly articulate a specific sanction outcome that you say is appropriate. This should be done clearly and early in your submission, and justified throughout the body.

Three scenarios based on Sandpapergate (2018): Steve Smith (Captain), David Warner (Vice-Captain), Cameron Bancroft (Junior Player). Each student is allocated one scenario through eLearning.

Your scenario materials specify the date of the hearing (Monday, 30 April 2018 for the Bancroft scenario). You should only cite or rely on information available prior to that hearing date.

Yes. Strong submissions acknowledge the other side rather than ignoring it. This approach enhances credibility and shows the Tribunal that your proposed sanction is the product of considered judgment, not wilful blindness.

The marking criteria are structured as follows:

• Approach: Structure (10%), Relevance & Priority (10%)
• Substance: Research, Understanding & Insight (20%), Critical Thinking & Persuasion (30%)
• Execution: Language, Tone & Writing (20%), Concision (10%)
• Word Count: Deduction only (0%)

Key observations: Substance is worth half the marks. Critical Thinking & Persuasion (30%) is the largest single component. Word Count carries no positive marks — it can only result in deductions.

This criterion (10%) assesses whether you have identified the issues that genuinely matter and given them appropriate weight. A submission that treats all factors equally, or that devotes substantial word count to minor points while under-developing the strongest arguments, will score poorly.

There is no leeway whatsoever on word limits. Undergraduate (LAW201): 2,000 words maximum. Postgraduate (LLM521): 2,500 words maximum. Marks will be deducted if you exceed the limit by even a small amount.

All substantive text in the body, including headings, in-text references, and quoted material. It does not include a cover page, a "Sources Consulted" list, or the AI Use Statement.

No prescribed font, spacing, or margin requirement. Submissions must be clearly structured, easy to navigate, and professional in presentation. Must be submitted as PDF. File name: LAST NAME, First Name – SCENARIO – Role.pdf

No single mandatory structure, but strong submissions typically include: Applicable Sanctioning Framework, Key Mitigating or Aggravating Factors (each with its own heading), Sanctioning Principles, Conclusion and Proposed Sanction.

Highly formal and professional throughout. This is a forensic submission addressing a Commissioner dealing with serious integrity issues. Write in a measured, restrained, and precise style.

The Cricket Australia Code of Conduct sets out a structured sanctioning process. Key provisions: Article 7.1 (Commissioner must impose sanction), Article 7.2 (determine level, consult Table of Permissible Sanctions), Article 7.3 (consider all relevant factors for mitigation or aggravation).

For offences under Articles 2.2.3, 2.2.11, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, or 2.4.5, the Commissioner has broad discretion: suspension from one Suspension Point to a lifetime ban, a fine up to $10,000, bans from holding positions, reparation orders, counselling, community service, and/or reprimand.

Yes. The sanctioning framework permits different types of sanctions, and combining them may be appropriate.

Yes — and you are expected to. Independent research is both permitted and rewarded under the Research, Understanding & Insight criterion (worth 20%).

Formal legal citation (AGLC) is not required. You are encouraged to draw on comparable sporting disciplinary matters. If you rely on prior decisions, ensure they are relevant, accurate, and genuinely comparable.

No. This task assesses your ability to make persuasive written submissions, not to compile an evidentiary brief.

Very little. By the sanctioning stage, the Commissioner is assumed to be fully familiar with the underlying facts. Use facts only where they directly support a specific argument.

Parity is a powerful argument. When advancing a parity argument, identify comparable co-accused specifically, highlight similarities and differences, and explain why consistency supports your proposed sanction.

These can all be relevant but must be handled with care and precision. For mitigation, frame as consequences already suffered. For aggravation, ground in evidence rather than emotive rhetoric.

This is one of the central tensions in sanctioning. Strong submissions acknowledge deterrence as legitimate, argue the proposed sanction achieves it without being disproportionate, and demonstrate how rehabilitation is served.

Quality always outweighs quantity. The strongest submissions identify the two to four most compelling arguments and develop them thoroughly.

Yes. Consider how your submissions would be received by the Player, Counsel Assisting, Cricket Australia, and the Commissioner.

Yes, within strict boundaries.

Include an AI Use Statement at the end of your submission.

If you have a question not addressed here, post it to the Assessment 1 Discussion Forum on eLearning — forum questions are answered as a priority, and common questions are added to this page.

FAQs for the Sponsorship Review & Analysis assessment will be added here once assessment details are confirmed. Check back closer to the assessment release date.