Page 94 - Judge Manual 2017

K.21 Protest Committee Member with a Minority Opinion
There are various levels of disagreement with the decision of a protest
committee, which can be handled differently:

Level 1: Usually, after thorough discussion, a member of the protest committee
who does not agree with the majority accepts the decision of the majority. This
should be simply recorded as a majority decision on the protest form without
stating who the judge(s) in the minority are.
Level 2: If the judges in the minority feel strongly that they do not wish to be
associated with the decision, they have the right to be named as dissenting
judges when the decision is announced and to have their names recorded on
the form.

Regardless of any personal disagreement with the jury’s final decision, a judge
is duty-bound to uphold it. A judge must refrain from criticizing the decision of
a protest committee in public, whether or not he or she was a member of the
jury. Criticism of a jury decision may not always be misconduct (or "inadequate
conduct" in terms of Regulation 32), but the manner, time and place in which
the criticism is expressed will determine whether it is misconduct.
There is nothing wrong with discussing (and criticizing) a decision with other
judges in private for the purpose of education, or for the purpose of persuading
a protest committee to reconsider the decision under RRS 66. However, any
discussion with competitors, coaches or the public of a difference of opinions
within the protest committee will almost never be appropriate conduct and can
only serve to inflame a situation and damage relationships with other officials. If
a judge does not wish to associate him/herself with a decision, then the proper
course of action is to exercise the right to be named as a dissenting member in
the decision and then refer any queries to the published decision only.
The chairman must include details of the case in his regatta report if the
dissenting member(s) request it to be done.

K.22 Onus of Satisfying the Protest Committee

For protest hearings, the burden of proof is the “balance of probability”, unless
a rule specifies a different burden of proof.
There is one rule, 18.2(e), that permits the protest committee, when there is a
reasonable doubt, to presume facts about whether a boat obtained or broke an
overlap in time. However, the protest committee must not merely rely on this
rule; it must take an active part in trying to resolve the doubt by other means. It
should question the parties and witnesses to elicit all available evidence to find
facts and to learn what actually happened. Then, if still in doubt, it may use rule
18.2(e) to resolve the protest.
When making its decision, rule 18.2(e) is relevant only when the protest
committee is in doubt. In this case, the decision might use such words as: ‘The
protest committee is not satisfied that A, astern established an inside overlap
before B ahead reached the zone,’ and cite rule 18.2(e). When the protest
committee is satisfied by the evidence that A astern failed to obtain an overlap,
then the words used might be: ‘A astern failed to establish an inside overlap
[etc.],’ and rule 18.2(e) would not be cited in the decision.