Standard of Proof?

On when protests should be heard - the same day. All you need is three sailors and a rule book. An exception could be made for venues were club racing is run for boats from several clubs, in which case a delay of a day or so might be justifiable. I hav never understood why anyone should have to wait for several weeks.

I think Brass has adequately illustrated the cultural influence on rule 69
 As a point of fact I have never been involved in a Jury initiated rule 69 hearing - the original report was always from a competitor.

I have penalised a boat under rule 2 from a Jury protest - for hitting a mark and sailing on. But we had anounced our intention in a policy document before the event started.

Originally posted by gordon On when protests should be heard - the same day. All you need is three sailors and a rule book.

It would be good, but I've never succeeded in doing it other than for open events, where its normal to stay until the prizegiving.

In normal club racing I have never managed it. Quite probably I'm just an incompetent organiser, but by the time I've received a form its probably at least half an hour after the race has finished, more likely an hour. It takes me another quarter of an hour to round up some sort of PC and try and set a time for a hearing. By then at least some of the key participants, esp witnesses, are almost certain to have already gone home, or will claim that they are unable to stay any longer. Between 63.2, 63.3 and natural justice I find it very difficult to hold a hearing on the same day without some people being absent, in which case the hearing would probably end up having to be reopened, which means there wasn't much point in holding it at all.

Its going to vary from club to club, but these days where I am relatively few people hang around and socialise after racing for an extended period of time, so there's little opportunity to get a hearing started.

I've resorted to trying to hear a protest by email exchange, but it took weeks. In practice each exchange seems to take about three days to get all the replies in. The verdict was then challenged and the hearing reopened, then referred to the RYA, and the whole process took about three months!



Edited by JimC - 15 Jun 12 at 10:26am

It would seem that I frequent clubs where competitors spend more time in the bar.

One improvement would be to have a sheet on the notice board for decalring an intention to protest. Thsi to be completed as competitors come off the water. If the protestor, protestee and witnesses are designated then they know they have to hang around.

The protest committee must be ready to hear protests immediately... I have often completed hearing all protests before the end of protest time limit. One asks the protestor to find the protestee, and hearing starts immediately. We have also heard protests in the dinghy park rathe than waiting for a room to be made available.

If we have to wait then hearing schedule is posted and it is made very clear that it is competitors responsibility to read the notice and be present. A protest time limit of say 45 mins (for a small inland water) plus 15 mins to post schedule would mean that at the latest protest is heard 1 hour after racing.  Once competitors realise that they may be disqualified and that they would need a very good reason for obtaining a re-opening, then they will usually decide to hang around.

Originally posted by r2d2 Originally posted by Brass Originally posted by Presuming Ed comfortable satisfaction - that's the phrase. My mistake.  Makes me think quaffing port and cigars after a good dinner.    It's a term I believe comes from UK jurisprudence.   It means (roughly) that in respect of decisions that can have 'serious' consequences, like suspension from sailing, balance of probabilities at 51/49% isn't enough:  the margin has to be more 'comfortable'.  Part of the concept, as I understand it, is also that a mere arithmetical calculus of probability isn't sufficient:  the tribunal has to be satisified in their heart-of-hearts. I am afraid this is just playing with words.  "heart of hearts" - oh come on - give me strength, the wussies! if the best that can be done is to define it "roughly" then it shouldn't be adopted

Originally posted by ohFFsake   Originally posted by Brass It probably cannot be defined at all:  just like 'reasonable doubt' cannot be defined. Actually, UK law defines this quite tightly via the "Wednesbury" test. In short, something is considered unreasonable if no reasonable person could ever have arrived at this opinion. When you think that through carefully it's actually a very good test as it invites the judge to consider a variety of other opinions, not just his own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesbury_unreasonableness