Vaughan's lawyer Stoner asks why documentation related to the ECB's interview with Ajmal Shahzad, in which he did not corroborate Azeem Rafiq's allegation, had not been disclosed to Vaughan's team.

Botros said they did make the team aware Shahzad did not corroborate the allegation.

Asked why that document was withheld from Vaughan, Botros says it was within a bundle of documents that the ECB had the right to claim privilege over.

He goes on to say that a transcript was disclosed.

"Surely in a fair and transparent investigation, you hand over all documents, good or bad?." Botros replies: "We did, subject to legal principles." He adds the ECB went "above and beyond" to make Vaughan's team aware of Shahzad's non-corroboration and disclosed a transcript.

Stoner then questions the timing of the delivery of the disclosure, which Botros refutes saying it was provided "a significant amount of time before the hearing".

Stoner asks Botros if his position remains that the ECB can withold documents that could exonerate Vaughan.

Botros says that is incorrect. "We have no documents that exonerate Mr Vaughan."

He adds: "You have made no other applications for documents we have so presume there is no disagreement over the documents we have."

Stoner moves on to ask Botros if the umpires of the 2009 game were contacted. Botros says they weren't because the alleged comment did not take place within the umpires' earshot and there is no evidence the incident was reported to them.

Stoner says the Sky footage shows the umpires were in "proximate" location to the players. Botros disagrees with this. "It is quite clear the umpires were not near the huddle."

Stoner asks Botros about the specific allegation made by Azeem Rafiq against Vaughan and suggests the ECB should have spoken to all the Yorkshire players who took part in the game in question against Nottinghamshire on 22 June 2009.

Botros says the ECB "did speak to the individuals where we were able to" but that "certain indviduals either didn't want to take part or engage", the ECB "weren't able" to get contact details for others and that "certain individuals made it very clear" what their position was through stating what they thought of Rafiq's allegation or Rafiq himself more generally.

Stoner says the ECB approached the Professional Cricketers' Assocation to ask Adam Lyth, Gerard Brophy, Deon Kruis and Jacques Rudolph for their consent in contact details being provided. Stoner asks what other steps did the ECB take apart from asking the PCA.

Botros says they asked Rafiq for contact details but the primary place they ask for details in their investigations is the PCA.

Stoner: "Did you ask other players to get in touch with those players?"

Botros says when someone they spoke to suggested they speak to someone else then they did ask for contact details.

Stoner: "So there had to be an indication?"

Botros: "The main way we get contact details for players is the through the PCA."

Stoner says Lyth was contacted, then highlights Brophy, Kruis and Rudolph. Botros says that Brophy specifically told the PCA not to pass on his details. He adds they approached the PCA for the other two and they "had not got consent".

Stoner says that Rafiq and Adil Rashid provided witness statements and there were interviews or written submissions with Ajmal Shahzad, Andrew Gale and Tim Bresnan. He says Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Adam Lyth did not want to take part. Regarding Shahzad, Gale and Bresnan, Stoner says because they did not support the ECB they could not be relied upon and no documentation by those three was provided to Michael Vaughan at this stage.

Botros says that this was "for reasons set out" - it "wasn't relevant to the charge" against Vaughan.

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner continues the questioning of ECB's director of legal and integrity Meena Botros and now refers to another section of his witness statement.

This states a meeting took place with Rafiq "to listen in person to his allegations" and to explain the ECB's investigatory and disciplinary process to him. This meeting took place over two days in November 2021.

Stoner queries why Vaughan's team had not seen any documentation created around that meeting. Botros points out that it had been the subject of a "number of letters" between the parties but suggests no actual request for such documentation was made.

Asked about "relevant documentation" from Adil Rashid, Botros says Rashid's witness statement is all they have.

Under further questioning about the documentation the ECB has considered, Botros goes on to say its primary evidence in relation to the charge is that from Rafiq and Rashid, as well as comments given to the press from Rana Naved ul-Hasan.

Stoner asks Botros if the ECB investigation ever looked at individuals' phones and messages. Botros confirms yes "from certain individuals".

"Did you exercise powers to look at anyone's phones to look at messages?". Botros says they did not ask anyone to hand over their phone as this wouldn't fall under CDC regulations.

"But did you ask?". Botros replies: "We asked for relevant documents from individuals if they had anything in relation to the matter. We specifically asked for text messages at times. Did we ask anyone to hand their phones over to us? No."

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner puts it to Botros that the ECB has not been provided with all the documentation from the original Squire Patton Boggs investigation comissioned by Yorkshire.

Botros: "Correct."

Stoner says no further step or threat of a charge was advanced by the ECB intergrity unit about not being provided with these documents.

Botros said the ECB had a "significant amount of extensive correspondence" with Yorkshire on this matter and Yorkshire's explanation for not providing them is that they don't have the documents. Botros says that given this the ECB did not feel it "reasonable" to charge Yorkshire and that they have set out why to Vaughan's legal team. He adds it is "not reasonable nor proportionate" to charge Yorkshire with a breach for failing to provide us with documents "they don't actually have".

Stoner asks if Yorkshire don't have them because the law firm SPB were independent.

Botros: "Yes."

Stoner: "Squire Patton Boggs were instructed to carry out the investigation by Yorkshire?"

Botros: "Yes."

Stoner suggests the transcripts of interviews carried out by SPB are "clearly highly relevant".

Botros: "not necessarily because they might not be relevant to the charge of whether the respondent did or didn't say something on a day in 2009".

Stoner says "we just don't know" that.

Botros replies that they had "extensive correspondence" with Yorkshire over an interview in the SPB investigation with a player "who only joined Yorkshire in 2017". Botros says that he doesn't believe the ECB "not getting" the transcript of an interview with a player who only joined Yorkshire in 2017 suggests there was "any issue" with the ECB investigation.

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner directs ECB director Botros' attention to a point in his witness statement in which he stated: "In its capacity as a regulator, the ECB must remain independent of action being taken by one of its member First Class County clubs."

"That's just not what happened, is it?" Stoner suggests. Botros bluntly replies: "It is what happened."

Returning to discussions about Lord Patel, Botros says: "I just don't have knowledge of some of the things that Lord Patel has talked about."

Stoner asks Botros whether he was aware of alleged non-disclosure agreements being in place at Yorkshire during the ECB's investigation.

Botros said he has "become aware" that NDAs are allegedly in place, but had "no awareness of them at the time". "I haven't seen them nor would I because I have nothing to do with that."

Returning to Botros' witness statement, in which he said "the ECB has an established investigatory and disciplinary process for dealing with regulatory matters such as Mr. Rafiq's allegations".

Stoner asks him to confirm if he is referring to the Cricket Disciplinary Commission regulations, which Botros confirms he is.

Stoner then asks if the ECB has the power to require of any individual or entity under its jurisdiction to attend interviews, answer questions, provide documents and other materials etc, which Botros again confirms "subject to the qualifications set out".

"So if they don't comply that could be a disciplinary issue?" Stoner asks. "Yes."

"Was anyone in this case charged with not complying with what you wanted them to do?". "No."

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner draws attention to an article with outgoing Yorkshire chairman Lord Patel in Eastern Eye., external

In it there is the claim that the ECB "urged" Lord Patel to "get rid of people" after taking over from former chair Roger Hutton.

Yorkshire saw 16 members of staff sacked or leave as the scandal engulfed the club.

Stoner asks if during its investigation the ECB asked Patel to do that.

Botros: "That's what you've just read out."

Stoner: "Are you saying Lord Patel is not being trutful?

Botros: "That's not what I'm saying."

Stoner posits the ECB were "actively involved" in the Yorkshire situation while the investigation was ongoing.

Botros says Stoner is "mistating" the ECB's regulatory function from the other roles. He says the regulatory function is "independent" of what was happening at Yorkshire but there are other parts of the ECB and he is "not aware of everything" happening in those parts. He insists the regulatory function is "independent".

Stoner asks if Botros is aware of any of Patel's claims in the piece.

Botros says there is "quite a lot in that quote" and he has to go through them all because he may be aware of some but not others.

Stoner: "You were aware of certain aspects?"

Botros says that if Stoner is referring to the claim that the ECB "urged" Patel to take action, he has "no knowledge" of the ECB telling Patel to sack individuals from thre previous regime.

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner asks Botros about part of his witness statement in which he states it is standard practice for the ECB to wait for any club investigation to end before they start their own. He asks Botros what is meant by "allegations of this nature".

Botros: "Alleged breaches of the ECB directives."

He confirms that it is standard practice for the ECB to wait for any club investigation to be completed before beginning its own regulatory investigation.

Stoner: "In this case you started the ECB investigation in September 2021?"

Botros: "Yes."

Stoner: "You issues charges in June 2022 so nine months of investigation?"

Botros: "Yes."

Stoner asks if the ECB must remain independent of action taken by member clubs.

Botros: "Yes."

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner takes ECB director of legal and integrity Botros to a point in his witness statement in which it is written: "Mr Shahzad notably also stated in his interview that he did not recall shaking Mr Vaughan's hand, something which clearly appears in the Sky footage..."

Stoner queries the use of the word "notably". He then directs Botros to Adil Rashid's witness statement in which he said he also hadn't recalled shaking Vaughan's hand until he saw the footage.

"You don't in your witness statement refer to that part of Mr Rashid's evidence," Stoner say. Botros replies: "No."

Stoner then suggests that Botros' "clear purpose" of referring to Ajmal Shahzad is to "try and undermine him because he's not here and he said he didn't hear it".

Botros denies, this, saying: "It's setting out what Shahzad said. It's a relevant factor in what he said."

Botros is then taken through various statements that the ECB put out during recent years on the matter, confirming that he still agrees with them and the ECB's position.

Stoner asks him if the panel will get to see every piece of information the ECB collated during its investigation, to which Botros says "no".

A panel member then reminds Stoner that not every document would be presented.

Stoner asks Botros: "Is it right that the purpose of an investigation must be to objectively collate as much information as is possible?". Botros replies "not as much as is possible but as much as is appropriate".

Vaughan's lawyer Stoner challenges Botros about not being present at a meeting between Rafiq and Vaughan following the DCMS select committee hearing - yet the meeting then being mentioned in his witness statment.

Botros reiterates that it is "normal" for the ECB to put in a statement about the process followed. He said such a statement is "not usually the subject of cross-examination because there is no evidence in it".

Stoner then asks "what on earth is the purpose" of Botros mentioning in his witness statement that former Yorkshire bowler Ajmal Shahzad stating he didn't recall shaking Vaughan's hand before the T20 match in question in 2009 when Sky footage shows the handshake took place.

Botros says that "like the rest of the witness statement" it sets out the process followed by the ECB.

Stoner says he understands the process but again asks why this detail is included.

Botros says it's because it is something Shahzad said in his ECB interview.

Stoner suggests it is there to "undermine" Shahzad's evidence because he's not taking part in the proceedings.

Stoner: "Do you agree with that?"

Botros: "No - it's in there to set out relevant information in terms of what I can give for my witness statement."

Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner KC begins by asking Botros: "You were in charge of this investigation?"

Botros: "Correct."

Stoner puts to Botros that Rafiq's allegation of what is said appearing in his witness statement is submission and not evidence.

Botros says he is just relating what Rafiq claims Vaughan said.

Stoner says the statement should then fairly include points both "for and against" the ECB.

Botros: "It does include points against the ECB."

Stoner mentions Vaughan having named himself publicly and the inclusion in Botros' statement of how Vaughan continues to deny the allegation and refuses to apologise to Rafiq for it.

Stoner: "Do you apologise for things you haven't said?"

Botros: "Not generally, no."

Stoner asks "why on earth" Botros is then giving evidence to this panel about Vaughan refusing to apologise.

Botros says his statement is to set out the process that has been taken by the ECB and that the decision to charge Vaughan had already been made. He adds it "doesn't in any way" suggest he can state what happened that day because "I wasn't there".

Meena Botros is the next witness to be called. Botros is the director of legal and integrity at the ECB.

Michael Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner KC begins his questions.

A reminder that Vaughan has been charged with the use of racist and/or discriminatory language, specifically on the outfield prior to the start of a T20 match between Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge on 22 June 2009.

He is alleged to have said "there's too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that" towards the four Asian players on the Yorkshire team that day.

Vaughan denies the allegation.

As with the other witnesses in the cases of those who have chosen to withdraw from these proceedings, the panel have no questions for Majid Haq.

Haq departs.

Proceedings move on to the ECB's case against former England captain Michael Vaughan.

Majiq Haq played 54 one-day internationals and 21 T20s for Scotland.

He is currently being asked by ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy KC to confirm the witness statements he has submitted to these proceedings.

Blain has been charged with the ECB with bringing the game into disrepute.

He is alleged to have used a racial slur, specifically referring to Asian individuals, during pre-season training at Headingley in April 2010 and on other occasions at Yorkshire in 2010 and/or 2011.

Blain, who denies the allegations, has withdrawn from these proceedings.

Before we get to Vaughan, proceedings will begin with former Scotland international Majiq Haq, speaking via video link.

He has given evidence against former Yorkshire bowler and coach John Blain, who played with Haq for Scotland.

The ECB's case against Blain was heard on Wednesday but Haq was unable to join until today.

• Day two began with Michael Vaughan's lawyer, Christopher Stoner KC, outlining his client's defence and reiterating that Vaughan denies the allegation made against him. Stoner says Rafiq's recollection of events cannot be relied on.
• Adil Rashid appeared via video link from Bangladesh and confirmed he had heard the alleged comment from Vaughan, though believes the former England captain is not a racist and it was a "poor attempt at humour".
• Rashid denied being pressurised into corroborating his "close friend" Rafiq's allegation against Vaughan.
• Rashid also denied deleting WhatsApp messages between him and Rafiq regarding the Vaughan allegation.
• Rafiq was cross-examined and stood by his account of the 2009 "you lot" comment by Vaughan, but accepted there were some mistakes in his evidence.
• Rafiq said he wishes he'd had the courage to speak up earlier, adding he carries the "mental scars".

Day three of the Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) hearing into allegations of racism at Yorkshire CCC is about to start at the International Arbitration Centre in London.

We're expecting to hear evidence from Michael Vaughan today.

Image source, PA Media