Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
I think it's a bit 'busy', and for the hearing itself I prefer my trusty old Jim Capron version, but I think the first section Preparation is absolutely excellent.
It is overloaded with 'coaching points'.. Probably no need everything after the hyphens.
It reads like a training document, rather than a procedure checklist. Protests for Dummies, perhaps. Did US Sailing have anything to do with this, by any chance?
I'm with you John. It's very complete (and makes a good reference for new chairs) but for practical use by well trained judges, it's quite cumbersome.
Take this extract for example...
Decision • Give appropriate weight to evidence and determine each fact on balance of probabilities [63.5(a)] • Record enough facts to permit an outsider to understand the case and for a competent person to come to the same conclusion as you. • Resolving different views: Majority vote [63.5(b)] Minority accept, vote, dissent • Conflict between rules [63.5(c)]; Class rules – if doubt [63.5(d)] • Prepare draft decision, recall parties and read decision. Maybe edited and then available [63.6]
Could it be reduced to this?
Decision • Record facts • Prepare draft decision • Recall parties and read decision.
Benjamin - I don’t think it can. Stressing the burden of proof and the duty to give reasons are good things, IMO, and good habits. They fireproof a decision.
Interting, is after decision. Check and edit. It gives three options, with no explanation. I have seen this before though in rotating scribe documention. This is a vial area for us to be on the same page!
Concerning changes to facts and conclusions in a hearing decision, I would welcome comments from experienced judges in the forum on what constitutes best practice in this area.
Naturally, scribes work very hard "to get it right" the first time and avoid changes to a decision after it has been announced to competitors. As a practical matter, however, post-hearing changes that help clarify the reasons supporting a decision, but not the decision itself, seems to be a widely accepted practice. Understanding where the limits are is part of the judge's trade-craft.
For example, at events where multiple protest committees hold hearings simultaneously, it is not uncommon for the chief judge to assign one senior member of the team to review decisions for completeness, accuracy, and internal consistency. If advisable, edits to a decision are made in consultation with the review judge, scribe, and hearing chair. This process almost always take place after parties have been informed of the decision, but before publication.
On balance, this strikes me as a prudent review process with good controls. Serious deficiencies in a decision may justify reopening the hearing, which can be done on the protest committee's own initiative and before decisions are posted for public inspection. Published decisions are usually clearer and easier for readers to understand, particularly for those whose first language is not English.
I don't think anyone would disagree that correct application of burden of proof and other elements are crucially important to any hearing procedure.
We who teach should certainly cover and model these elements so that new judges may absorb them as 'par for the course' .
My comment is about the checklist as a 'tool' to be used in a hearing. I would prefer it to be a more concise list of procedural requirements. One which can be glanced at to ensure everything is covered, but not such that I need any more than a glance.
A pilot takeoff checklist covers the steps to get the aircraft off the ground safely. It doesn't tell the pilot how to fly.
A judge's checklist should cover the items to conduct a sound fireproof hearing. It shouldn't tell the judge basic principals of judging.
For a new judge this checklist will serve very useful. At some point on the continuium of increasing experience, I feel the list will increasingly be found as a hinderence. At least, of less usefulness.
By the 6th hearing of the night, even the CAS checklist becomes monotonous. And that's pretty concise.
Anyway, each to their own. Perhaps one day we will have Checklist #2 - The Concise edition. People could choose according to their preference.
Perhaps someone can correct me. Paul / Rob Overton?
I think it was originally developed around 2015 following an IOC requirement for all Olympic sports to align their dispute resolution processes with Court of Arbitration for Sports guidelines. Something like that.
So in International Jury events (issues most likely to go to end up at CAS if any) it was what had to be used.
o While editing is often needed before publication, it is clear that care must be taken after the decision is read to the parties. There are three possible outcomes from ‘Editing’.
o Category 1: No reopening – no change of decision.
n Grammar, spelling and typos.
n Changes to preferred wording.
n Changes to preferred format.
· Boat identification.
· Addition of numbers for facts.
n Facts. Changes to facts, including:
· Deletion of unnecessary facts.
· Addition of facts that were found in the hearing, but not recorded – greatest care needed here.
n Conclusion and rules.
· Addition of RRS 14 if contact – care is needed.
o Category 2: Reopening, but does not need the parties, or addition to hearing schedule.
n No new evidence needed.
EFFICIENT JURY HEARINGS
n Incorrect rules quoted – not just rule numbers.
n Goes back to panel for confirmation.
n The parties must be informed.
n The time clock for re-opening restarts.
o Category 3: Reopening – parties needed – to be on hearing
Perhaps someone can correct me. Paul / Rob Overton?
I think it was originally developed around 2015 following an IOC requirement for all Olympic sports to align their dispute resolution processes with Court of Arbitration for Sports guidelines. Something like that.
So in International Jury events (issues most likely to go to end up at CAS if any) it was what had to be used.
I'm aware that in CAS terms sailing protest hearings hover around the boundary of 'field of play' decisions and off field tribunals: they are clearly not protected as 'field of play' decisions, but they are characterised by attenuated procedural fairness processes.
Can anyone provide some documents that explain how and why CAS gets to prescribe a checklist for sailing protests?
"A bit busy... '? More than 'a bit' IMHO!
It is overloaded with 'coaching points'.. Probably no need everything after the hyphens.
It reads like a training document, rather than a procedure checklist. Protests for Dummies, perhaps. Did US Sailing have anything to do with this, by any chance?
I'm with you John. It's very complete (and makes a good reference for new chairs) but for practical use by well trained judges, it's quite cumbersome.
Take this extract for example...
Could it be reduced to this?
Check and edit.
It gives three options, with no explanation.
I have seen this before though in rotating scribe documention.
This is a vial area for us to be on the same page!
Judges Manual F5.6 appears to be the proper guidance.
Nothing in the JM mentions editing or changing the decision that has been read to the parties.
Concerning changes to facts and conclusions in a hearing decision, I would welcome comments from experienced judges in the forum on what constitutes best practice in this area.
Naturally, scribes work very hard "to get it right" the first time and avoid changes to a decision after it has been announced to competitors. As a practical matter, however, post-hearing changes that help clarify the reasons supporting a decision, but not the decision itself, seems to be a widely accepted practice. Understanding where the limits are is part of the judge's trade-craft.
For example, at events where multiple protest committees hold hearings simultaneously, it is not uncommon for the chief judge to assign one senior member of the team to review decisions for completeness, accuracy, and internal consistency. If advisable, edits to a decision are made in consultation with the review judge, scribe, and hearing chair. This process almost always take place after parties have been informed of the decision, but before publication.
On balance, this strikes me as a prudent review process with good controls. Serious deficiencies in a decision may justify reopening the hearing, which can be done on the protest committee's own initiative and before decisions are posted for public inspection. Published decisions are usually clearer and easier for readers to understand, particularly for those whose first language is not English.
Thoughts welcome.
I think that's pretty much core business for judges. If those things need 'stressing' we're in a bit of trouble.
I don't think anyone would disagree that correct application of burden of proof and other elements are crucially important to any hearing procedure.
We who teach should certainly cover and model these elements so that new judges may absorb them as 'par for the course' .
My comment is about the checklist as a 'tool' to be used in a hearing. I would prefer it to be a more concise list of procedural requirements. One which can be glanced at to ensure everything is covered, but not such that I need any more than a glance.
A pilot takeoff checklist covers the steps to get the aircraft off the ground safely. It doesn't tell the pilot how to fly.
A judge's checklist should cover the items to conduct a sound fireproof hearing. It shouldn't tell the judge basic principals of judging.
For a new judge this checklist will serve very useful. At some point on the continuium of increasing experience, I feel the list will increasingly be found as a hinderence. At least, of less usefulness.
By the 6th hearing of the night, even the CAS checklist becomes monotonous. And that's pretty concise.
Anyway, each to their own. Perhaps one day we will have Checklist #2 - The Concise edition. People could choose according to their preference.
CAS Checklist
Perhaps someone can correct me. Paul / Rob Overton?
I think it was originally developed around 2015 following an IOC requirement for all Olympic sports to align their dispute resolution processes with Court of Arbitration for Sports guidelines. Something like that.
So in International Jury events (issues most likely to go to end up at CAS if any) it was what had to be used.
Anyway, I've always called it the CAS Checklist.
A checklist is to remind you to do things that you know how to do, not tell you how to do them.
I'm happy with the RRS references in the WS Checklist.
Not so happy about the items that are neither in the RRS nor the Judges Manual.
· The decision and clean up:
EFFICIENT JURY HEARINGS
n
o Category 3: Reopening – parties needed – to be on hearing
Ben said
I'm aware that in CAS terms sailing protest hearings hover around the boundary of 'field of play' decisions and off field tribunals: they are clearly not protected as 'field of play' decisions, but they are characterised by attenuated procedural fairness processes.
Can anyone provide some documents that explain how and why CAS gets to prescribe a checklist for sailing protests?