Page 121 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

that the race committee was not entitled to disqualify SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
the boats without a hearing. The redress it granted was a Miss Elainey Us protested Blue Tack in respect of an
hearing, and it proceeded to hear the protest by the race incident at a mark in Race 6 of the Sonata Northern
committee. It decided that neither mark was Championship. The protest was dismissed. The
unambiguously designated as a rounding mark, and protestor was a visiting boat and the protestee was a
reinstated Suntouched and Trust into their finishing member of the host club. The protest committee that
positions. The race committee appealed, on the grounds heard the protest included a member who had a close
that there was no ambiguity. relative who had sailed aboard Blue Tack in the race
concerned. That fact was not disclosed to Miss Elainey
DECISION Us’s representative at the hearing.
The race committee’s appeal is dismissed. However, the
protest committee’s reasons for reinstating Suntouched When the protestor pursued this after the hearing, the
and Trust into their finishing positions are corrected. chairman of the protest committee acknowledged that a
mistake had been made, apologised and offered a
The protest committee was correct to decide that the rehearing, which was accepted by the protestor.
race committee was not entitled to disqualify
Suntouched and Trust without a hearing (nor, had it The organizing authority then revoked this offer, and no
done so, would it have been entitled to score them DNF, new hearing was called. Miss Elainey Us appealed.
since they both finished, as defined.) See WS Case 80 DECISION
and Case RYA 1989/8.
Miss Elainey Us’s appeal is upheld. The RYA confirms
The protest committee was incorrect to decide that a the decision of the protest committee to rehear the
hearing (in effect, a protest hearing, at which the protest. It is to be reheard by a new protest committee.
disqualification of Suntouched and Trust was a An organizing authority has no power to override a
possibility) was the appropriate redress. Disqualification
can never result from a request for redress alone. See decision of a protest committee, including a decision to
reopen a hearing.
Cases RYA 1990/7 and 2001/12. Had the protest by the
race committee been valid, then that might have While that is reason sufficient to uphold the appeal, the
resulted in the disqualification of Suntouched and Trust, RYA notes that the protest committee was correct to
independently of the requests for redress. In fact, the decide to reopen the hearing.
protest was clearly invalid, having been lodged more
than two months after the incident, and there was no Rule 63.4 requires that any member of the protest
reason to extend the protest time limit. committee with a potential conflict of interest must
declare the conflict as soon as he becomes aware of it
The fact that the race committee had not intended the and that any party to the hearing who believes a
course to include marks that had to be looped does not member of the protest committee has a conflict of
relieve a boat of her obligation to loop them. See Case interest must object as soon as possible.
RYA 2000/5. The words used in the sailing instructions
clearly made all marks rounding marks for the purposes A protest committee member with a conflict of interest
of the string test in rule 28.2. However, the protest must take no part in a hearing unless all the parties,
committee was not required to consider the details of having been informed of the conflict, agree that he may
the course sailed by Suntouched and Trust. Its correct do so, or if the protest committee decides that the
reason for reinstating Suntouched and Trust into their conflict is not significant, having taken into
finishing positions, in the absence of a valid protest consideration the views of the parties, the level of the
against them, should have been that, unless otherwise conflict, the level of the event, the importance to the
specified in the sailing instructions, a race committee parties and the overall perception of fairness.
has no power to disqualify a boat without a hearing, or The correct procedure, as described in Appendix M2.3,
(if she finishes, as defined) score her DNF, if it believes is for the protest committee chairman, before the
she has not sailed the course. hearing begins, to ask all protest committee members to
declare any potential conflict of interest and then to ask
Request for redress by Suntouched and Trust, Race Committee v
Suntouched and Trust, Bosham SC each party if they have an objection to any of the protest
committee members. If a party objects, the protest
RYA 2007/1 committee must then decide whether the conflict is
Rule 63.4, Hearings; Conflict of Interest significant. The conflict of interest, the consent or
Appendix M, Section 2 otherwise of the parties, and the protest committee
RYA Racing Charter decision on the participation of the conflicted protest
committee member must be documented in the written
An organizing authority has no power to revoke a decision of the hearing.
decision of a protest committee to rehear a protest.
The proceedings of the protest committee were contrary
When a protest committee includes a person having a to these requirements, and the original decision was
conflict of interest, whose interest has not been improper, as the protest committee chairman then
disclosed to the parties and who takes part in the realised. This is not to cast any aspersion on the
proceedings, its decision is improper. integrity of any member of the protest committee.

If a party agrees, as in rule 63.4(b)(1), to continue with
a protest committee member that has declared a conflict
121