The ECB's lawyer Jane Mulcahy KC will now begin cross-examining Michael Vaughan.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan is about to speak for the first time during this week's proceedings.

His lawyer, Christopher Stoner KC, has asked him to confirm his witness statement and he has.

As we wait to hear evidence from Michael Vaughan - the only defendant to appear in person at this hearing - here's a recap of what he's said in response to the allegations to date:

To the BBC:

"It hurts deeply, hurts me that a player [Rafiq] has gone through so much be treated so badly at the club that I love.

"I have to take some responsibility for that because I played for Yorkshire County Cricket Club for 18 years and if in any way shape or form I'm responsible for any of his hurt, I apologise for that."

Asked if he ever made any racist comments during his time at Yorkshire, he said: "No I didn't. No."

"I just remember it clearly that I was proud as punch that we had four Asian players representing Yorkshire County Cricket Club.

"Nothing but a proud, senior, old pro just about to retire and absolutely delighted that Yorkshire had come so far in my time at the club."

Speaking in front of MPs in 2021, Rafiq claimed Vaughan might not remember the incident because "it doesn't mean anything to him".

Vaughan reponded: "That hurts because I've always felt that every single team that I've been involved in, the biggest praise I've got as England captain for six years was that I was the kind of person that really galvanised the group," Vaughan said.

"I always felt that I was the person in the dressing room that really wanted everyone to feel included."

Asked if Rafiq, Rashid and Naved were lying, he said: "The problem with this situation is that we've got too much 'he said, he said, she said, did they say' and I think we've got to move on from accusations of conversations from many years ago."

During Thursday's evidence, Azeem Rafiq said he "clearly" recalls Michael Vaughan making an alleged racist comment in 2009 - despite admitting there were discrepancies in his evidence.

Ex-England captain Vaughan is accused of saying "there's too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that" to Rafiq and three other Asian players at Yorkshire before a T20 match 14 years ago.

Cross-examination of Rafiq by Vaughan's lawyer focused on why the claim appeared with different wording in other statements.

Rafiq told an independent investigation commissioned by Yorkshire between 2020-2021 that Vaughan had said: "There's too many of you lot,we need to do something about it."

Rafiq said in Thursday's evidence he was "very clear" that Vaughan did say the phrase "there's too many of you lot" and that is the "discriminatory" part of the comment.

"The comment on the day clearly stands out and it still hurts," he said.

He added the version of the comment "we need to have a word about that" is the correct one, which he first said in an interview with Wisden in August 2020, external- without initially naming Vaughan - then repeated during the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) investigation in 2022.

Vaughan, who is about to give evidence at the hearing in London,"completely and categorically" denies the allegation.

England spinner Adil Rashid and former Yorkshire and Pakistan bowler Rana Naved-ul-Hasan have corroborated the allegation.

The fourth player in the group, former England bowler Ajmal Shahzad has said he has no recollection of it happening prior to a match against Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge on 22 June 2009.

Dan Roan
BBC sports editor

Michael Vaughan is accused of making a racist comment to Rafiq and three other Asian players during a Yorkshire game 14 years ago.

Vaughan has repeatedly denied the claims. He stepped back from his broadcasting work at the BBC last year after he was charged. So there’s a huge amount at stake for him. He’s trying to clear his name.

Many will feel that his career will hinge on the decision reached by this three-person panel in the coming week.

With ex-England and Yorkshire captain Michael Vaughan about to give evidence in person, here's some background on the allegation against him.

The third point Botros is asked about is him responding to Stoner about not being sure if you still had jurisdiction to compel Shahzad to attend, but that he "did indicate the panel" or CDC had such a power.

Botros: "It might, I wasn't certain."

Milliken-Smith asks if it is correct that the ECB has not made application to the panel for the attendance of any particular witness?

Botros: "Yes."

That ends the questioning of Botros.

The panel has a couple for questions for Botros, related to his evidence today.

Botros is referred back to his use of the word 'notably' when, in his witness statement, he said Ajmal Shahzad stated he didn't recall shaking Vaughan's hand. (See 10:18 entry).

Mark Milliken-Smith KC says the suggestion is that the use of the word 'notably' is an expression of Botros' opinion. Botros agrees with this.

"Do you agree that the panel should ignore any opinion that you did express in the course of the witness statement?," Botros is asked. "Yes".

Milliken-Smith then moves to discussions around the disclosure of the transcript of Ajmal Shahzad's ECB interview transcript (11:10 entry).

"You said that at the outset you made Vaughan's team aware of the interview with Mr Shahzad and the fact it wasn't a corroborative account. Is that correct? At the outset?"

Botros replies: "Yes, by outset I mean from the moment we charged."

"You weren't prepared to disclose the full content of that interview?"

Botros again says it fell within a category of documents that was privileged, but again reiterates they made Vaughan's team aware.

Stoner refers to Rafiq's evidence yesterday in which he made a number of references to 'his team', and then points out Rafiq has been the subject of a number of threats.

Stoner asks Botros if the ECB is paying for Rafiq's security personnel. "I believe so," he replies.

Botros then confirms the ECB is not paying for Rafiq's lawyers, nor his PR.

That ends Stoner's questioning of Botros.

Stoner says there have been "a number of leaks" during the investigation while it was still "in a confidential stage". He asks Botros who else apart from the ECB and its lawyers were aware of the detail of the charge against Michael Vaughan before the charges were sent to the respondents.

Botros says he "couldn't say for sure" on all of the points but adds that Azeem Rafiq was aware the ECB were charging individuals because they "needed to finalise" Rafiq's witness statements. He adds they had to do that in order to charge and so Rafiq could know who he was going to giving evidence against.

Stoner: "So is the answer to the question, Rafiq?"

Botros says yes in terms of the reasons he just detailed.

Stoner points out Rafiq's witness statement is dated 10 June 2022 and the charge was sent to Vaughan on 15 June.

Botros: "That's my point."

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner then turns to a transcript of the ECB interview with former Yorkshire bowler Ajmal Shahzad and highlights the moment when Shahzad says there is "every chance" that he and/or Adil Rashid would've used the phrase "you lot" in relation to a group of English players at Yorkshire. Stoner asks Botros what steps did the ECB take to investigation that?

Botros says that is "all you have" in relation to that claim, whereas the evidence about it being used against Asian players was "extensive". He adds that "one reference" of someone saying there is a "chance" is not sufficient to take that claim forward.

Stoner asks why Shahzad is not here as a witness and says the ECB has the power to compel him to appear.

Botros: "I believe the panel does." He says he "may be mistaken on that" given that Shahzad, who is now a coach, is no longer a cricketer. "I don't know enough about his current status," he adds.

He adds the ECB brought charges against individuals where they had "sufficient evidence" to bring charges and they can't do so where it would not have been resonable.

Stoner asks Botros if this ECB investigation is the "centrepiece" over their response to Rafiq's claims of racism in cricket and Botros says there is work being done in response by other areas of the ECB and he is just here to talk about regulatory matters.

Stoner refers Botros to a section in his witness statement in which it is stated: "The ECB is committed to combatting all forms of racism and discriminatory conduct within cricket in England and Wales. One of its key priorities is to create an environment where no individual, group or organisation experiences racism and/or discriminatory conduct in any form, including the use of racist and/or discriminatory language."

Stoner then directs Botros to Rafiq's claims that the term "you lot" being used towards groups of Asian players was prevalent at Yorkshire, and its use was "normalised".

"What steps did you take to investigate this allegation that it wasn't just Mr Vaughan but the whole list of Yorkshire's playing squad and staff?"

Botros replies: "A lot of steps, a lot of people were spoken to and charges brought. Mr Vaughan is not the only individual charged with the use of that language." (Richard Pyrah, Matthew Hoggard and Tim Bresnan were also charged for this).

He points out Yorkshire has been charged for failing to address systemic use of racist and/or discriminatory language over a prolonged period.

Stoner points out that there could be players who used the term "you lot" in reference to Asian players who have not been charged and "fall under a general charge where Yorkshire takes the rap".

Botros replies: "That may be the case but we can't take action if we don't have sufficient evidence to take that action against them."

He continues: "There's been extensive investigation about the use of language at Yorkshire over a prolonged period of time.

"It's involved tens of allegations against a number of potential suspects over a very large number of years, has involved a huge amount of investigation, thousands of emails and documents. It has been throughly investigated. It has been a very extensive investigation that has resulted in some very serious charges."

Stoner highlights an article by journalist George Dobell on the Cricinfo website, external in which former Yorkshire bowler Rana Naved-ul-Hasan confirmed he heard the alleged comment by Michael Vaughan - "there's too many of you lot, we need to do something about that". Stoner points out this not the same wording as in the charge - "we need to have a word about that".

Botros: "No."

Stoner says in the article the former Pakistan seamer said he was prepared to provide evidence - but that he's not engaged with the ECB "at all".

Botros: "Not in terms of giving evidence, no."

Stoner suggests that part of the article therefore "appears to be wrong".

Botros: "It may have been correct at time and he may have changed his mind but I can't speak to that.

Stoner asks about a phone message sent to Rana Naved-ul-Hasan about trying to set up a time to speak and the former Yorkshire player initially says he is unavailable. Stoner asks Botros what the full extent of the ECB's attempts to contact Naved-ul-Hasan were.

Botros says he needs to check but thinks they also had an email address for him but they didn't know if it was correct and didn't get a reply.

Stoner asks Botros if he agrees that Naved-ul-Hasan's message is not clear whether he is not available just at the time or not available at all.

Botros: "Yes."

Stoner: "How did you get his contact details?"

Botros: "Rafiq."

Stoner asks Botros about how the ECB spoke to Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad but didn't speak to any other player about this allegation.

Botros: "I think that's correct."

Stoner: "You didn't speak to the umpires?"

Botros: "No."

Stoner: "You didn't speak to the Sky cameraman?"

Botros: "No."

Stoner: "You didn't ask to speak to Mr Vaughan either?"

Botros: "What do you mean?"

Stoner: "You didn't ask to interview him?"

Botros: "No, we wrote to him."

Stoner says that the "reality" is that after the initial meeting with Azeem Rafiq in November 2021, the ECB "weren't interested in looking into the matter other than finding corroborating evidence".

Botros: "That's not correct."

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner restarts by referring to the ECB's interview with Ajmal Shazhad, in which he suggested he felt Adil Rashid was being pressured by Azeem Rafiq into corroborating the allegation against Michael Vaughan.

"Shahzad makes a serious allegation that he thinks a witness is being pressured. Surely you go away and look into that and ask further questions?" Stoner asks.

"We have asked further questions as [Rashid] gave in his evidence yesterday.

Stoner then asks Botros to confirm that Vaughan's team doesn't have documents related to those further questions because privilege has been claimed. Botros replies that he doesn't recall.

"Did you ask Mr Rashid specifically for any messages that might relate to this allegation?

"I don't recall specifically what we asked for in terms of messages."

Christopher Stoner KC - Michael Vaughan's lawyer - continues his questioning of ECB director of legal and integrity Meena Botros.

The panel is now taking a short break until approximately 11:30 GMT.

Stoner now refers Botros to the ECB's letter to Vaughan.

In the letter, he says the allegation is that Vaughan's comment was "there's too many of you lot, we need to do something about it".

He points out that this wording is different to that with which Vaughan has been charged. "Words are important, are they not?".

Botros highlights that "there are too many of you lot" is the "very important" part, "but in general, yes words are important".

Stoner refers back to the letter in which the ECB and asks why Vaughan was asked to respond in writing and why there was no request or suggestion of an in-person discussion.

Botros says if Vaughan had requested a meeting, they would "of course" have met with them.

"Getting information in writing in a letter can sometimes be more helpful", adding they would take the preference of the individual.

Stoner suggests the ECB weren't interested in meeting Vaughan because they'd "already decided to charge him".

"No", says Botros.

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner is asking why the allegations against Vaughan were not put to Tim Bresnan and Andrew Gale. He suggests that the ECB didn't want them saying they didn't hear Vaughan making the comment.

Botros says that is "not correct". He adds it is "absolutely clear" what Bresnan and Gale thought of Rafiq and they were "firm in their position". He adds they clearly "do not corroborate" Rafiq's allegation and they've since said they do not. He says the charging basis was taken on the evidence given by Rafiq, Adil Rashid and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan all saying it had taken place/

Stoner asks why the ECB did not seek to interview Michael Vaughan.

Botros said the ECB wrote to Vaughan and offered him chance to respond, which he did in writing. He said some respondents prefer to respond in writing but that if they do want to meet then the ECB grant that request and that the ECB did meet with some of the respondents in this case.

Stoner says this is just "assumptions upon assumptions" and the ECB just "assumed" Vaughan didn't want to be interviewed.

Botros says that while they didn't ask to interview Vaughan, they wrote to him setting out the charge, asked if he wanted to repsond, he did and then if he did also want to be interviewed then the ECB would've done that.

Botros says that "no-one" has suggested the umpires were close enough and the Sky footage doesn't suggest they were.

Stoner: "Surely you spoke to Sky about speaking to the cameraman?"

Botros says they assumed the cameraman had headphones on and there is no suggestion he heard anything.

Botros says it does not fall within reasonable or proportionate to do so and then adds that the respondent [Vaughan] is "rightly going to great lengths to defend their position" but he is "not aware" of Vaughan's team chasing up either the umpires or the cameraman and that "if you think it's such an important point then that may have been taken up."

Botros says Stoner is "speculating".

Stoner points out the Sky footage is the only contemporaneous evidence the panel has got.

Botros reiterates the footage "does not show the cameraman with the huddle at the point it's breaking away".