Page 63 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

metres hull length, had not displayed a protest flag in Although it would have been appropriate for a member
accordance with rule 61.1(a). of the race committee to be present throughout the
hearing as protestor, this is a right, but not an
C appealed on the grounds that she was entitled to obligation, and the protest committee is empowered by
protest without displaying a flag because it was not until rule 63.3(b) to decide the protest if a party to a hearing
after the finish of the race that she became aware that B does not come to (or, therefore, leaves) the hearing. In
was not lodging a protest.
any case, an appeal against incorrect procedure will
DECISION only succeed when a boat's case has been, or may have
C’s appeal is dismissed. been, prejudiced, and there is nothing in the appeal to
lead to any doubts about protest committee procedure.
C was correct to base her protest on a breach of a right- To the contrary, it would appear that the protest
of-way rule, and not on failure to comply with rule 44.2, committee made every effort to ensure that she was
since the latter is relevant only once the former has been given a fair hearing.
upheld.
The chairman of the protest committee did not have a
The facts make it clear that C had no good reason for conflict of interest, as defined, because he did not stand
non-compliance with the requirements of rule 61.1(a). to gain or lose as a result of the decision nor had he a
Her protest was invalid.
close personal interest in it. Rule 63.6 specifically states
When a third boat witnesses an incident in which she that a member of the protest committee who saw the
herself is not involved, and wishes to protest, she must incident shall state that fact while the parties are present
comply with rule 61.1(a) by hailing ‘Protest’ and when and may give evidence. That he witnessed the
the rules require it, by displaying her flag, at the first infringement did not debar him from acting as chairman
reasonable opportunity. or from giving evidence, provided that he gave it in the
presence of the protestee.
Mistral v Red Devil, Weir Wood SC
Race Committee v C 7321, UK National Cadet CA
RYA 1981/10
Definitions, Conflict of Interest RYA 1981/14
Rule 63.3(b), Hearings: Right to be Present Rule 60.3, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or
Rule 63.4, Conflict of Interest Rule 69 Action
Rule 63.6, Hearings: Taking Evidence and Finding Rule 61.1(c), Protest Requirements: Informing the
Facts Protestee
Rule 63.1, Requirement for a Hearing
A member of a protest committee does not have a Rule 63.2, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing:
conflict of interest merely because he or she witnessed Time for Parties to Prepare
the incident. The protest committee is entitled to decide Rule 70.1(b), Appeals and Requests to a National
the protest even if the protestor was not present for Authority
some of the hearing.
When a protest committee disqualifies a boat that is not
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS a party to a hearing that boat has a right of appeal
The chairman of the protest committee saw what he having been denied a hearing.
believed to be an infringement of rule 42 by a boat, and
he hailed her to that effect. When a protest committee believes that a boat that is
not a party to a hearing may have broken a rule, it must
The boat was protested by the race committee under first make her a party to a hearing by protesting her.
rule 42. The race officer gave evidence, was questioned She must be notified and given time to prepare her
by the protestee and the protest committee, and then left defence and she has the same rights as any protestee to
the hearing. The protest committee proceeded to hear call and question witnesses.
and question the protestee. The chairman of the protest
committee also gave evidence and was questioned by SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
the protestee and by the other members of the protest When approaching a mark, there was an incident in
committee. The protest was upheld, the boat was which A collided with B and B, in turn, collided with
disqualified, and she appealed on the following Whitewash. A protested B and at the hearing both these
grounds: boats were exonerated while Whitewash was
disqualified. The observations of the protest committee
a) No member of the race committee was present read as follows:
throughout the hearing as protestor. The race officer
gave evidence only as a witness: he was not present to ‘After hearing the statements of all the parties, we the
hear the protestee's evidence. members of the protest committee realised that we had
a somewhat embarrassing situation in that the
b) The chairman of the protest committee had a conflict helmsman of Whitewash, attending only as a witness,
of interest as he had warned the protestee on the water could bear at least some of the blame. We, of course,
and so had his mind made up as to the outcome of the did not say this to the parties concerned but we did
hearing regardless of the evidence presented. question Whitewash's helmsman very carefully to bring
DECISION out his side of the question...After considering the facts
The appeal is dismissed. we concluded that Whitewash was at fault...’

63