Simply No Winners Amid Hughes Inquest Acrimony

Tristan Lavellete casts an analytical eye over the issues raised by events at Sydney Coroners Court last week

Undoubtedly it has been a miserable start to the Australian cricket season. That is not a reference to Australia’s wretched recent tour of South Africa, an essentially invisible series that few have noticed Down Under.

Uncomfortably, attention last week centred on the inquest by the NSW coroner’s court into the tragic death of Phil Hughes nearly two years ago. The 25year-old was struck on the base of the skull while batting at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) on November 25, 2014, and died in hospital two days later as a result of a traumatic haemorrhage caused by the blow.

After five excruciating days of this intensely public probe, there appears nothing of substance has come of it and, instead, at the heart of it all is a manifesting bitter dispute between the Hughes family and Cricket Australia and its players.

There have been no winners from this sombre spectacle, only accusations and a dredging of cricket’s saddest episode. In Australia, the prevailing sentiment from the public was cynicism over the whole exercise.

That raises an important question. Why was this inquest held? Many believe the inquest should not have taken place but given that it was a death deemed “accidental” in the workplace then under law in New South Wales it was appropriate for the state coroner to undertake a review, a process supported by the Hughes family.

In a bid to understand what exactly went on during that fateful day and, most importantly, to find more safety measures for cricketers ensured an inquest rightly was held though Cricket Australia had already undertaken an independent review. That review concluded Hughes’ death was a tragic freak accident and using a now mandated British Standard helmet would not have been a preventative measure.

Still, the Hughes family had obviously been holding on to genuine concerns and those reservations deserved airing.