Why has New Zealand Cricket never addressed the issue of Kuggeleijn’s acquittal on a rape charge?
By way of background, this related to an alleged incident at a Hamilton flat on May 17, 2015. The complainant was a 21-year-old student at Waikato University, who has permanent name suppression. The case resulted in a hung jury in 2016 and Kuggeleijn was found not guilty in 2017.
Circumstances surrounding the case and whether “no means no” as the testimony indicated have angered some fans since. By way of example, news of his call-up immediately drew the ire of many on social media and, in an anecdotal example, patrons on the embankment booed when Kuggeleijn returned to bowl the second over after lunch on the opening day.
On one hand, NZC’s position is understandable. To address the issue when Kuggeleijn had been found not guilty risked relitigating the case. Yet for an organisation that has taken such an ardent stance on equality and inclusiveness in recent years, particularly regarding women’s involvement as players and fans, a more proactive stance might have been prudent.
Intriguingly, the year after the case’s conclusion, the players’ association added a new “good decision-making” section to their handbook, with one segment reading:
“No matter the situation, sexual consent is crucial. Remember, good consent is about good communication.
“If you want to have relations with someone, you are required by law to get consent from them each time.”
Other sports governing bodies must take note. Never let issues like this fester, because the court of public opinion will fill the void.
Regardless, a form of street justice has been meted out to Kuggeleijn, despite him getting cleared. A potentially long and promising international career for the now 32-year-old has currently been capped at two tests, two ODIs and 18 T20Is.