[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Grattan Endicott:

>...having fought to retain for appeals committees the
>power to exercise judgement, I should not be surprised
>if, on occasion, they do so in a manner that I find
>strange. So, to adapt a common misquotation, I may
>disapprove of what they do but I will defend to the
>death their right to do it...

Richard Hills:

Interesting.  By this logic, it is irrelevant whether a
hesitation without design is an irregularity.  An AC can
dial up any score adjustment it likes after an
infraction of the Law 73C prohibition on use-of-UI, slap
an "equity" sticker on that score adjustment, and the
AC's ruling is automatically legal.

Pocket Oxford Dictionary:

"equity, n. use of principles of justice to supplement
law"

Richard Hills:

As was noted way back at the beginning of this thread,
the reason that a Reveley Ruling is illegal in England
is that a Reveley Ruling fails the test of a _dictionary
definition_ of "equity".  That is, a player who abides
by Law 73C gets a worse score than a player who chooses
to infract Law 73C, since the infractor gets part or all
of their infraction included in the Reveley Ruling score
adjustment.

Grattan Endicott:

>...It is neither the function nor the aim of the Law
>Book to define 'equity'...

Richard Hills:

But the WBF LC has ruled that if a word in the Lawbook
is not defined therein, such a word is to be interpreted
in accordance with its dictionary meaning.

Therefore if the WBF Appeals Committee was sued for
damages in a real-world court of law, because it had
arbitrarily redefined an inequitable Reveley Ruling as
an "equity" score adjustment, it would have no credible
defence in that real-world court of law.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm