What is relevant here is the crime. Not who gave character witnesses, religious beliefs etc etc.
The crime IMHO was misjudged. Yes, he hit Lamb and hit him hard. That is high impact and severe impact. However, the argument from Richmond should be that that there is no way this was intentional. It was careless/reckless. There is no way in the world that in a few tenths of a second that Houli formed an intention to hit Lamb. As Houli said, he felt someone grappling him and he quickly glanced back, saw it was an opponent and threw his arm back to break the tackle. His arm bounced off Lambs shoulder into his head and knocked him out. The way he threw his arm back was careless as can be seen by the outcome. How can someone intend to cause so much damage when their focus was in running forward with the play and in a split second have the capacity to size up an opponent and intend to hurt them? Showing things in super slow motion gives the idea that Houli had several seconds to assess the situation and form an intention to hit. The fact is things happen in real time and not in super slow motion. They should always show replays of incidents at tribunals in real time only.
It was definitely careless. That being so, the penalty should have been three weeks, downgraded to 2 for his good record. No religion or character references needed.