World Sailing Code of Ethics applies to race officials including judges and provides

1.7 Confidentiality The principle of confidentiality shall be strictly respected by the Ethics Commission in all its activities. World Sailing Parties shall not disclose information entrusted to them in confidence other than in accordance with applicable laws or rules.  ... . 

Members of a protest committee who discuss matters that are the subject of a hearing indiscriminately may be perceived to exhibit bias in the matter.  Obviously some details of a protest may need to be discussed with sailing administrators or parties.  Judges need to exercise discretion.

There is no rule prohibiting a party to a protest discussing the matter with witnesses.  A party has every right to 'prove' their witnesses by questioning them on the testimony they will give, or to ask them to rehearse their testimony, to whatever level of depth they choose.

A party to a protest that attempted to induce a witness to lie in a protest hearing would break RRS 2 and RRS 69 but the facts supporting such a conclusion may be very difficult to adduce.

David, I assume you are referring to competitors rather than officials. In my experience, it is to be strongly discouraged and if seen, may be brought up in the hearing. I have one example where a 'proven' witness definitely wouldn't have been called if the party to the protest knew beforehand what the witness was going to say. A member of his own crew completely reversed the picture painted by his skipper. Personally I would think that 'proving' in some cases could result in vital evidence being withheld. But perhaps that's just me.

As to rehearsal, it can be apparent to the PC members when testimony has been rehearsed and agreed upon. In that case, the weight given to evidence that is repeated near word for word by a party and witness, may be given less weight that otherwise.

Ant Davey

Said Created: Today 13:13

I don't agree that it is any business of the protest committee how a party manages their witnesses or to encourage or discourage anything, apart from improper inducement to lie that i mentioned in my previous post.

A party is under no obligation to cut their own throat by bringing a witness with evidence adverse to their case, although this quite often happens because the party has failed to ask the witness what they are going to say.

Ant, can you clarify what you're suggesting should be "strongly discouraged"? Are you asking parties not to speak to their witnesses? How and when do you ask this, and what is the "penalty" for doing so other than when the testimony is rehearsed and therefore not that useful.