Quasi-judicial hearing
Discussion
I'm involved in a discipline hearing for two members of my sports club.
On the face of it it is a serious accusation: lack of proper care for a child under the age of 15 years and, in addition, not following the prescribed procedures with regards to head injuries.
It is rather odd as one of the two charged, a doctor, is highly qualified with regards to head injuries, having gone on specific courses for it when volunteering for service overseas in war zones.
However, there is a little problem: we've had 'difficulties' with the official who has made the complaint and is the prosecutor. In the past he's been vindictive and has a bee in his bonnet about our club.
We now find that not only will he be prosecuting the case at the hearing but will be on the panel judging culpability as well as any punishment. He's 1/3rd of the line up and, rumour has it, quite forceful in his opinions.
Now this is a quasi-judicial hearing and I understand that rules are not that strict. There are no rules in the annuls of the sport's judicial regs about this but I am quite uncomfortable about it.
We, the defence, are 'stone cold bonkers' on this: our evidence is overwhelming. But we are still being cited, so I'm a wee bit nervous. Certainly as a police officer, the time to worry at a trial was when there was no apparent defence.
So would a demand that the prosecutor does not sit in judgment at the hearing be reasonable?
One thing more: the charge is bringing the sport into disrepute but the evidence they've supplied us with is specific to not taking care of an under 15 child. My feeling is that the charge is wrong.
Help would be appreciated. One of those charged is a stalwart of our club: well respected, good at his job, and he works well with kids, some of whom are not, perhaps, born on the right side of the tracks (which many feel is the problem with the official).
Derek
On the face of it it is a serious accusation: lack of proper care for a child under the age of 15 years and, in addition, not following the prescribed procedures with regards to head injuries.
It is rather odd as one of the two charged, a doctor, is highly qualified with regards to head injuries, having gone on specific courses for it when volunteering for service overseas in war zones.
However, there is a little problem: we've had 'difficulties' with the official who has made the complaint and is the prosecutor. In the past he's been vindictive and has a bee in his bonnet about our club.
We now find that not only will he be prosecuting the case at the hearing but will be on the panel judging culpability as well as any punishment. He's 1/3rd of the line up and, rumour has it, quite forceful in his opinions.
Now this is a quasi-judicial hearing and I understand that rules are not that strict. There are no rules in the annuls of the sport's judicial regs about this but I am quite uncomfortable about it.
We, the defence, are 'stone cold bonkers' on this: our evidence is overwhelming. But we are still being cited, so I'm a wee bit nervous. Certainly as a police officer, the time to worry at a trial was when there was no apparent defence.
So would a demand that the prosecutor does not sit in judgment at the hearing be reasonable?
One thing more: the charge is bringing the sport into disrepute but the evidence they've supplied us with is specific to not taking care of an under 15 child. My feeling is that the charge is wrong.
Help would be appreciated. One of those charged is a stalwart of our club: well respected, good at his job, and he works well with kids, some of whom are not, perhaps, born on the right side of the tracks (which many feel is the problem with the official).
Derek
Even though the hearing is "quasi judicial", it should still be heard in accordance with regulations set out by the organisation concerned. If they have not set out their own hearing regulations, then any decision reached could be open to challenge via judicial review, although a JR would only look at whether the process used to reach the decision was wrong, rather than whether the decision itself was wrong.
Can I suggest that you ask the panel to consider a technical point before any evidence is heard. Mention the fact that it would go against natural justice to allow someone effectively acting as prosecutor to then also sit in judgement on the same case and also mention article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial). Tell them that if the hearing goes ahead with the prosecutor sitting in judgement, you'll immediately challenge them via judicial review.
Got to be worth a try, even if you've no intention of submitting a JR as there is a very clear conflict of interest.
Can I suggest that you ask the panel to consider a technical point before any evidence is heard. Mention the fact that it would go against natural justice to allow someone effectively acting as prosecutor to then also sit in judgement on the same case and also mention article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial). Tell them that if the hearing goes ahead with the prosecutor sitting in judgement, you'll immediately challenge them via judicial review.
Got to be worth a try, even if you've no intention of submitting a JR as there is a very clear conflict of interest.
Derek Smith said:
So would a demand that the prosecutor does not sit in judgment at the hearing be reasonable?
The legal principle is nemo iudex in causa sua*, with plenty of case law to back it up.- Nobody may judge his own case
The Panel must act in accordance with common law principles of fairness and an injunction could on appropriate facts be granted to compel this. Art 6 is not usually in play here because the panel does not determine a criminal charge or a civil right or obligation, and is in any event subject to the supervisory contractual jurisdiction of the Court, which is an article 6 compliant independent tribunal established by law.
The Panel only has power by virtue of contract. To act unfairly is to breach the contract. Lee v Showman's Guild is the key case here.
The Panel only has power by virtue of contract. To act unfairly is to breach the contract. Lee v Showman's Guild is the key case here.
Breadvan72 said:
The Panel must act in accordance with common law principles of fairness and an injunction could on appropriate facts be granted to compel this. Art 6 is not usually in play here because the panel does not determine a criminal charge or a civil right or obligation, and is in any event subject to the supervisory contractual jurisdiction of the Court, which is an article 6 compliant independent tribunal established by law.
The Panel only has power by virtue of contract. To act unfairly is to breach the contract. Lee v Showman's Guild is the key case here.
There's something I'm not getting about this - and I'm only really asking out of my own idle curiosity. What's a "quasi-judicial hearing"? Is it an actual thing, or is someone just using a fancy sounding adjective? What the OP described does sound a little dubious, but... it's just a sports club. Beyond cancelling my membership, what powers can a sports club have over me that merit such process and scrutiny as this? Do I have some sort of fundamental human right to membership of sports clubs that I wasn't aware of?The Panel only has power by virtue of contract. To act unfairly is to breach the contract. Lee v Showman's Guild is the key case here.
I would suggest any decision reached under the circumstances described in the OP would be void. Ask this person if he is happy to pay the costs (both parties) if the club loses any legal challenge.
Frankly, any person with half a brain can see they should not be judge, jury and executioner if any fairness is to be perceived.
Frankly, any person with half a brain can see they should not be judge, jury and executioner if any fairness is to be perceived.
SK425 said:
There's something I'm not getting about this - and I'm only really asking out of my own idle curiosity. What's a "quasi-judicial hearing"? Is it an actual thing, or is someone just using a fancy sounding adjective? What the OP described does sound a little dubious, but... it's just a sports club. Beyond cancelling my membership, what powers can a sports club have over me that merit such process and scrutiny as this? Do I have some sort of fundamental human right to membership of sports clubs that I wasn't aware of?
Let's assume you run a sports club for a national sport. You belong to the association and play your matches against other teams in the assoc. If you were, for instance, punished for breaches of the rules - and lack of care for the under 15s is a pretty serious accusation - then your membership of the association could be forfeit. The costs of this on the club could be extraordinary.Lets assume your team is playing at level 4 (for instance). Your team will have sponsors, you will have employees, you will be paying players. If you are kicked out of the association then there's no problem as you can apply again but you start at the bottom. Your sponsors leave, your good players leave to play at a club reflecting their skills levels and so do a lot of the spectators. Takings go down and the club struggles.
Quasi judicial is a phrase in common use I would have thought. It means that it is similar to a court, but not quite.
TooLateForAName said:
I'd say totally unacceptable for the prosecution to be a judge as well.
In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that proceeding on those terms might bring the club and indeed the sport into disrepute
what do the rules of the organisation or the NGB say about the consutitution of a disciplinary panel In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that proceeding on those terms might bring the club and indeed the sport into disrepute
I've seen a move to proper adversial and quasi-judicial hearings in both workplace and other organisation's disciplinary processes in the past decade
arguably the complainant shouldn't play any part in the hearing except as a witness if s/he is actually a witness and not a complainant acting becasue they are the 'line manager' of the 'victim' and acting o nthe basis of other's allegation .
the allegation should have been investigated by an independent officer of the organisation ( in structured organisations this is often the accused's line manager or the line manager's line manager) firstly to see if there is a case 'screening' (paralleling the CPS in a criminal case) and then building the prosecution case and presentign it at hearing
the panel should be seperate from the prosecution
complainant / prosecutor / panel member in one is not likely to demonstrate 'natural justice '( no freewibbler overtones to the use of term there - just the concept of a free and fair trial knowing what you are accused of before hand and by whom ...)
Edited by mph1977 on Saturday 27th December 16:23
SK425 said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Panel must act in accordance with common law principles of fairness and an injunction could on appropriate facts be granted to compel this. Art 6 is not usually in play here because the panel does not determine a criminal charge or a civil right or obligation, and is in any event subject to the supervisory contractual jurisdiction of the Court, which is an article 6 compliant independent tribunal established by law.
The Panel only has power by virtue of contract. To act unfairly is to breach the contract. Lee v Showman's Guild is the key case here.
There's something I'm not getting about this - and I'm only really asking out of my own idle curiosity. What's a "quasi-judicial hearing"? Is it an actual thing, or is someone just using a fancy sounding adjective? What the OP described does sound a little dubious, but... it's just a sports club. Beyond cancelling my membership, what powers can a sports club have over me that merit such process and scrutiny as this? Do I have some sort of fundamental human right to membership of sports clubs that I wasn't aware of?The Panel only has power by virtue of contract. To act unfairly is to breach the contract. Lee v Showman's Guild is the key case here.
( which may in fact be serious bizniss in temrs of the care of others ).
in sports the 'protest' is usually a qausijudicial process in that there is a 'prosecution' , a 'defence' and assessors / judges
a work place discip beyond a b
king off your line Manager ( or his/her lmanager) is usually quasi jusdicial again with a prosecution who present their case , a defence who defends against that case, cross examination and a determination of fact and sanction by a panel of assessors/ judges. If you belong to a club you agree to abide by its rules. If the club is itself regulated by a sports governing body those rules may apply. This is all based on consent. You can leave if you like, but membership of a club may be required if you are to take part in some tournaments etc.
On a larger scale, look at, for example, the Premier League. Every club agrees to follow FA rules. The FA in turn agrees to UEFA rules, and UEFA is part of FIFA. The major sports have powerful contractual courts/arbitral panels and appellate bodies that deal with rule infringements, drug abuse and so on, but all of this runs on the basis of contract. Sports law is quite a trendy thing these days (it's really a mixture of contract law, employment law and some public law elements).
As for quasi judicial, anyone who makes decisions between contending parties that are intended to bind those parties may be subject to an obligation to act fairly.
Excluding someone from a club or a sports governing body etc would not usually infringe a fundamental human right, but it might infringe a contractual right. Sports governing bodies and clubs will not usually be public authorities bound directly by human rights law. NB I am deliberately talking in fairly broad generalities.
On a larger scale, look at, for example, the Premier League. Every club agrees to follow FA rules. The FA in turn agrees to UEFA rules, and UEFA is part of FIFA. The major sports have powerful contractual courts/arbitral panels and appellate bodies that deal with rule infringements, drug abuse and so on, but all of this runs on the basis of contract. Sports law is quite a trendy thing these days (it's really a mixture of contract law, employment law and some public law elements).
As for quasi judicial, anyone who makes decisions between contending parties that are intended to bind those parties may be subject to an obligation to act fairly.
Excluding someone from a club or a sports governing body etc would not usually infringe a fundamental human right, but it might infringe a contractual right. Sports governing bodies and clubs will not usually be public authorities bound directly by human rights law. NB I am deliberately talking in fairly broad generalities.
Derek Smith said:
SK425 said:
There's something I'm not getting about this - and I'm only really asking out of my own idle curiosity. What's a "quasi-judicial hearing"? Is it an actual thing, or is someone just using a fancy sounding adjective? What the OP described does sound a little dubious, but... it's just a sports club. Beyond cancelling my membership, what powers can a sports club have over me that merit such process and scrutiny as this? Do I have some sort of fundamental human right to membership of sports clubs that I wasn't aware of?
Let's assume you run a sports club for a national sport. You belong to the association and play your matches against other teams in the assoc. If you were, for instance, punished for breaches of the rules - and lack of care for the under 15s is a pretty serious accusation - then your membership of the association could be forfeit. The costs of this on the club could be extraordinary.Lets assume your team is playing at level 4 (for instance). Your team will have sponsors, you will have employees, you will be paying players. If you are kicked out of the association then there's no problem as you can apply again but you start at the bottom. Your sponsors leave, your good players leave to play at a club reflecting their skills levels and so do a lot of the spectators. Takings go down and the club struggles.
Quasi judicial is a phrase in common use I would have thought. It means that it is similar to a court, but not quite.
The hearing went off badly although the evidence was quite clear in that the coaches acted properly. Exonerated.
The kid was OK, fine in fact. He's a great lad, good tackler. No concussion although the poor lad was banned from playing on a tour which started the following weekend. Correct decision, despite being cleared to play by the casualty doctor, but a bit hard on the lad.
It's not ending here as there are complaints about the procedure, and in my opinion quite rightly. There's too much discipline and blame. What we should do, especially where there are kids, that we just ensure that it doesn't happen again.
The kid was OK, fine in fact. He's a great lad, good tackler. No concussion although the poor lad was banned from playing on a tour which started the following weekend. Correct decision, despite being cleared to play by the casualty doctor, but a bit hard on the lad.
It's not ending here as there are complaints about the procedure, and in my opinion quite rightly. There's too much discipline and blame. What we should do, especially where there are kids, that we just ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff