Brennan ban reduced to five years

An independent appeal committee today reduced the lifetime ban imposed on Toulouse player Trevor Brennan to five years, effective from the first of this month.

The committee upheld the original verdict of misconduct arising from an incident during the Heineken Cup Pool 5 match against Ulster in France in January, when Brennan entered one of the seating areas in the stadium and repeatedly struck Ulster fan Patrick Bamford.

The appeal committee heard from Brennan, several character witnesses and from ERC's Disciplinary Officer during its hearing, before concluding that the original suspension was disproportionate and should be reduced.

Along with the ban from playing Rugby Union for five years, Brennan has also been suspended from participating in ERC tournaments in any capacity - that ban is also effective from June 1.

The former Ireland flanker will be 34 in September, so the five year ban still effectively stops him from returning to the game at the top level.

The Committee also upheld the original fine of €25,000, and the order to pay €5,000 compensation to Patrick Bamford, as well as the costs of convening the disciplinary hearing.

Brennan pre-empted the original verdict by retiring from professional rugby with Toulouse in March.

The original disciplinary panel recommended Brennan be "expelled from the family of rugby" and handed down the most stringent penalty available to it.

But the appeals committee - chaired by Justice Wyn Williams (WRU) and including Robert Horner (RFU) and Sheriff William Dunlop (SRU) - disagreed.

They ruled Brennan's actions could not be considered "an example of the most serious misconduct which a player could commit in relation to a spectator".

The panel's final verdict explains: "In our judgement it is possible to envisage more serious incidents.

"It is certainly possible to envisage incidents in which the consequences are significantly more serious than were the consequences in this case."

As a result they ruled the five years bans to be appropriate and rejected Brennan's appeals against the fine and compensation payment.

They agreed with the compensation payment as equivalent to that a court may hand down in a civil case and concluded: "We are wholly unpersuaded that the financial orders made against the Appellant are inappropriate."