Criminal Liability in Sports – Yasin Patel and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers

Who is to blame if someone gets seriously hurt in a game through a reckless tackle? Criminal liability in sports sits at the intersection of law, ethics, and athletic culture, raising complex questions about consent, risk, and accountability. While athletes implicitly accept a degree of physical danger inherent in their sport, what happens when injuries exceed what is reasonably expected or when conduct appears reckless or intentional?

Yasin Patel and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers evaluate the legal ramifications under both civil and criminal jurisdictions and consider the broader impact of high-profile injuries on the development, enforcement, and public perception of safety protocols in professional sport. By comparing contrasting cases in ice hockey, this analysis highlights the delicate balance courts and sporting bodies must strike between protecting athletes and preserving the integrity of competitive play.

The Law

Consent can be a defence to assault and battery but generally not to offences causing actual bodily harm (ABH) or more serious injury unless the conduct falls within a recognised public interest. In sport, the public interest in promoting participation renders injuries sustained within the rules typically non-offensive.

Participants in contact sports are deemed to consent to physical risks inherent in play – force “reasonably expected to happen during a game.”[1] Just by stepping onto the field, participants impliedly consent to injuries that would otherwise be unacceptable outside the sporting context. As affirmed by House of Lords in obiter, in R v Brown [1993]:

“In the contact sports each player knows and by taking part agrees that an opponent may from time to time inflict upon his body…what would otherwise be a painful battery. By taking part, he also assumes the risk that the deliberate contact may have unintended effects, conceivably of sufficient severity to amount to grievous bodily harm” [2]

The defence of implied consent only stretches to injuries that occur as part of the normal course of play. Players are taken to accept risks that are foreseeable and typical within the sport such as incidental contact. Courts recognise that fouls may occur “in the heat of the moment.”[3] As Jeremy Horder states:

“Injuries caused in the course of an ordinary lawful sporting contest are within the bounds of ‘ordinary contact’ and…do not give rise to liability, even when, for example, they contravene a rule of the game by amounting to a foul or violent conduct”.[4]

Consent cannot be used as a defence for acts that are deliberate or intended to cause injury. “Wanton violence” or actions clearly outside the accepted norms of the game are criminally actionable, even if they occur during a match – certain acts will not receive a “get out of jail free card” based on a binary demarcation.[5] Acts that are inherently dangerous, involve such a high risk of injury and distinct probability of harm, go beyond what participants can legally consent to.[6] Such conduct is considered criminally actionable, even if it occurs during a legitimate sporting event. Participants cannot rely on the inherent risks in sport to escape liability for acts that are sufficiently egregious or inherently dangerous to constitute criminal offences, including assault, ABH, or manslaughter.

Contrasting Cases on the Ice

It follows that the question remains: when does a sporting injury amount to criminal liability?

The answer depends on several factors: the type of sport, competition level, risk of injury, nature of the act, and the defendant’s state of mind. This article narrows its analysis to ice hockey – a sport where speed, aggression, and physicality often blur the line between accepted risk and criminal recklessness.

Ice hockey is a fast, skill-intensive, and physically demanding sport, with players skating at speeds exceeding 25mph.[7] It is, by its nature, an inherently high-risk activity and players consent to such risk simply by stepping onto the ice. Indeed, among all sports at the 2010 Winter Olympics, ice hockey recorded the highest rate of injury.[8] As the level of competition rises, so too does the intensity and risk of harm. Therefore, it is the player’s mens rea (mental state) and the nature of the act which become paramount in determining criminal liability.

This article examines two cases with different jurisdictions, leagues, and mens rea to highlight the factors which influence a court to charge a player with criminal liability.

Steve Moore

On 8 March 2004, Todd Bertuzzi skated after Steve Moore and, upon catching him, delivered a forceful and illegal hit to the side of Moore’s head, knocking him unconscious. Bertuzzi then fell on top of Moore as other players joined the pile-up. Moore suffered three fractured vertebrae and a concussion, effectively ending his professional career.

Bertuzzi faced repercussions across criminal, civil, and sporting jurisdictions. Bertuzzi was:

Charged with assault causing bodily harm receiving a sentence of one year’s probation and 80 hours of community service
Suspended by the NHL for the remainder of the season
Required to pay a substantial sum in an out-of-court settlement following Steve Moore’s civil action, resolved confidentially in 2014.

Adam Johnson

On 30 October 2023, Adam Johnson, sustained a fatal neck wound when he was struck by Matt Petgrave’s skate during an on-ice collision in the UK, which has since been described as a freak accident. Journalist Christian Bennett, present at the game, recounted: “Two players blindsided each other, just bumped into each other…The Sheffield player clearly got knocked off his feet and his skate went up and slit [the other player’s] throat.”[9]

Opinions within the hockey community diverged. While there was broad consensus that Petgrave’s actions were not intentional – effectively ruling out the possibility of unlawful act manslaughter – debate persisted as to whether his conduct was so reckless as to constitute gross negligence manslaughter. Sean Avery, former NHL player, described Petgrave’s move as “unorthodox” but insisted there was no murderous intent: “He absolutely intended to make contact with Johnson, but he didn’t wake up thinking, ‘I’m going to murder somebody today’.”[10]

Sports lawyer Dev Kumar Parmar suggested a conviction was unlikely, stating that prosecutors “would need to prove this was more than a freak accident”.[11] In contrast, ex-NHL defenceman Marc Methot commented: “I refuse to believe the defender targeted that area on purpose, but I do think it was an incredibly reckless attempt at disrupting Johnson’s path into the middle ice”.[12]

On 14 November 2023, South Yorkshire Police launched a criminal investigation into Petgrave on suspicion of manslaughter. However, in April 2025, the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) announced: “Following a thorough police investigation and a comprehensive review of all the evidence by the CPS, we have concluded that there is not a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal offence and so there will not be a prosecution.”[13]

In Bertuzzi, the assault was premeditated and retaliatory, arising from a prior altercation rather than an impulsive or competitive act within play. The use of deliberate and excessive force, coupled with the element of revenge, took the conduct beyond the bounds of implied consent recognised in contact sports. As such, the criminal conviction for assault causing bodily harm aligned with established principles that consent cannot extend to gratuitous or intentionally harmful violence outside the “playing culture” recognised in Barnes. This exemplified how intention or recklessness directed towards causing injury negates any defence of implied consent.

Conversely, in the Johnson case, the legal and moral complexity lay in determining whether Petgrave’s conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute gross negligence manslaughter. While his actions may have appeared unorthodox and careless, there was no evidence of intent to injure or disregard for life. The CPS’s decision not to prosecute reflects the principle that criminal liability in sport demands proof of a degree of fault far exceeding mere error or misjudgement in the heat of play. To criminalise such conduct would risk undermining the public interest in maintaining the spontaneity and physical intensity intrinsic to competitive sport.

Together, these cases reaffirm the boundary articulated in Barnes: that only conduct which is “sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal” falls outside the protection of implied consent. In essence, the line between accident, recklessness, and criminality in sport turns not merely on the outcome but on the state of mind and context of the act. Premeditated violence, as in Bertuzzi, engages criminal sanction; tragic misfortune, as in Johnson, does not.

Governing Bodies

While the courts remain the ultimate arbiters of criminal liability, sporting regulators have both the autonomy and the responsibility to mitigate risks inherent in high-contact play.

In Bertuzzi, to combat intentional, aggressive play, governing bodies and national leagues must ensure that their code of conduct explicitly delineate between aggressive play within the rules and conduct that is reckless or dangerous. Disciplinary sanctions should not reflect merely the outcome of the incident but also the player’s intent and degree of deviation from accepted playing standards. Arguably, Bertuzzi’s sanctions did not go far enough.

In Johnson, to combat accidental, freak accidents, governing bodies must enhance their safety protocols in a preventative rather than reactionary response. Indeed, enhanced safety protocols usually come in the aftermath of accidents. For example, it was not until North Star, Bill Masterson, was struck on the head by a puck and died, that the long-running debate in hockey about the merits of wearing helmets was sparked.[14] However, Johnson’s death was not the first time a player has suffered a catastrophic neck injury from a skate. However, it was the case which marked the turning point, for some, to implement mandatory neck guards. At the time of Johnson’s death, neck guards were a recommendation, not a requirement. Rule 9.12 NECK LACERATION PROTECTOR of the IHHR Rulebook for 2023/24 season stated: “All players are recommended to properly wear a neck laceration protection. This protective device is recommended to cover as large of an area as possible on the player.”[15] Following Johnson’s death, the IIHF made neck guards compulsory in all its competitions from December 2023. Similarly, from January 2024, England Ice Hockey required all players, at all levels, to wear approved neck protection. For the 2024/25 season and onwards, America’s Hockey League mandate neck protection of all players and on-ice officials.

However, this approach is not unified. Elite Ice Hockey League (“EIHL”), the UK’s top league, has since to mandate neck guard but rather “strongly recommended the use of neck laceration protectors”.[16] USA Hockey also continues to remain unphased by the death of a player to change their policies. The EIHL stated that it “remains committed to player safety as our top priority”. While the EIHA has taken decisive steps to enhance safety, the Elite League, featuring teams like the Panthers and Steelers, has opted not to make neck guards mandatory. Instead, the Elite League will “strongly encourage” players and officials to wear them, acknowledging the importance of promoting safety without enforcing a mandate.[17]

National associations and sports organisations bear the responsibility of advocating for suitable protective equipment, ensuring it neither begets new risks nor compromises the essence of the game.

Ultimately, governing bodies must strike a balance between preserving hockey’s physical and competitive essence and safeguarding its participants. The law intervenes only at the margins – it is for regulators to ensure that the margins are as narrow as possible.

Conclusion

The Bertuzzi case illustrates the far-reaching consequences of misconduct in professional sport, demonstrating that players can face accountability across criminal, civil, and sporting jurisdictions. It highlights the importance of player safety, ethical conduct, and the enforcement of disciplinary standards, serving as a cautionary example for athletes, teams, and governing bodies alike. Ultimately, the case underscores that actions on the field can carry serious legal and professional ramifications, reinforcing the need for vigilance and responsibility at all levels of sport.

In contrast, the Johnson case has brought to light the intricate interplay between legal, safety, and regulatory considerations in the realm of ice hockey. It serves as a catalyst for introspection, prompting stakeholders to reassess and enhance safety measures while navigating the complexities of legal accountability in the context of a fast-paced and inherently risky sport.

[1] R v Billinghurst [1978]

[2] R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19, per Lord Mustill, at para. 41.

[3] R v Barnes [2004] EWCA 3246, at para. 15

[4] https://www.newsweek.com/adam-johnson-death-matt-petgrave-ice-hockey-1839161

[5] R v Chapman [2010] in https://www.sports.legal/2023/10/crossing-the-line-criminal-liability-on-the-field-of-play/

[6] R v Ciccarelli [1989], 54 C.C.C. (3d) 12.

[7] https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/nsca-coach/common-injuries-in-ice-hockey/?srsltid=AfmBOorLWmuvNWF115b1Ixqjo2Gcq1_31ozSNEY68CsbBaaBzdNj5_YO

[8] Ibid.

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/29/nottingham-panthers-ice-hockey-player-adam-johnson-dies-after-freak-injury

[10] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2023/10/31/matt-petgrave-adam-johnson-death-sean-every-ice-hockey/

[11] https://www.deseret.com/sports/2023/11/2/23942543/adam-johnson-dies-throat-slashed-during-game-nhl#:~:text=%E2%80%9CI%20refuse%20to%20believe%20the,middle%20ice%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20wrote.

[12] https://www.deseret.com/sports/2023/11/2/23942543/adam-johnson-dies-throat-slashed-during-game-nhl#:~:text=%E2%80%9CI%20refuse%20to%20believe%20the,middle%20ice%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20wrote.