The case against Sevu Reece
On one hand, you could argue the All Blacks have selected Sevu Reece with indecent haste, given what emerged in a court case just last year.
On the other hand . . . well, there isn’t another hand to my mind.
His selection, about a year to the day since he attacked his partner in public, is a shock. The lack of an outcry is mildly surprising, considering anything as trivial as a jersey unveiling has the potential to send the planet into a meltdown.
But I think the All Blacks should think again on this one.
If Israel Folau is a touchstone for the topic of an inclusive society, then Reece should be something similar for the topic of violence against women, or violence against anyone.
While the world hammers Folau for expressing an opinion, a very unfortunate opinion, Reece has floated into the preliminary World Cup squad with extraordinary ease — despite an appalling act of violence
on his recent record.
To get the facts on the record, Reece escaped without a conviction in October, when he appeared in the Hamilton District Court for sentencing on one count of male assaults female, which he admitted.
He escaped on the grounds that he would lose his contract with Irish club Connacht, who ripped up that contract anyway.
As was reported, an argument had erupted between Reece and his partner, and he was seen to pull her to the ground. A doorman intervened, with the woman suffering injuries to her face, and other bruising.
In the time-honoured fashion, his lawyer argued a conviction would be out of proportion to the offending.
That’s a matter of opinion, and not one the All Blacks and New Zealand Rugby are duty-bound to adhere to.
The judge noted Reece had a problem with alcohol, and that the victim “had appeared” to forgive him.
Reece told the police he had no memory of the incident.
Forgiveness doesn’t lessen a crime. A lot of people drink heavily without assaulting people.
In a shocking irony, Reece probably ended up in All Blacks World Cup contention because of this assault, the loss of his Irish club contract leading him to the Crusaders.
Reece, in my opinion, needed to serve a longer sentence in rugby terms than what has occurred. For starters, the All Blacks cannot know, with any certainty, that he is a reformed character.
And all power to the police prosecutor Melanie Feist, who opposed the discharge and questioned whether a conviction would actually end his career.
“This is an episode of family harm that occurred in the public domain — this is offending that is being widely deplored in the community and significant money by the Government is being spent to tackle domestic violence,” she told the court.
The police hate dealing with domestic violence, from what you gather. It is such a complex and emotional battleground. You could understand if they felt frustrated by court rulings like this.
Australian league this year effectively banned NRL star Ben Barba for life, after he assaulted his partner in public.
There are similarities between the cases, apart from the extraordinary disparity in the sport’s attitude towards them.
Barba pleaded guilty to public nuisance charges, and lost a British contract.
But the lack of a court conviction for Reece, given the reasoning, should not equal an automatic get-out-of-jail card in rugby terms.
Some cases capture the public imagination. It’s not always fair or reasonable.
Who knows what the correct length of punishment for Reece is. But it had to be something significant, well beyond missing one Mitre 10 Cup match for Waikato.
His All Blacks selection is being greeted with everything from awe to awkward silence. The great god of rugby conquers all.
This is a loaded question, but I’d love to know what victims of domestic violence feel about these double standards.
Reece casts an ugly shadow over this World Cup campaign. Hopefully it doesn’t extend to Japan.