[blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 25/05/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Wayne Burrows asked:
>
> >>My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal
> >>as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower".
> >>
> >>Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee?
>
> Ed Reppert replied:
>
> >Yes.
>
> Richard Hills quibbles:
>
> Yes and no.  See Law 93B3.
>
> The appeals committee is the higher tribunal for decisions on facts or
> matters for judgement.
>
> The director is the higher tribunal for Law 91 disciplinary rulings,
> and also for interpretations of Law.

The laws (and regulations) themselves are a higher authority than the
director. L81B2 "The Director is bound by these Laws and by
supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation."

Who rules against the director when there has been a violation of L81B2?

>
> But the lower tribunal of the appeals committee may humbly request the
> higher tribunal of the director to reconsider an interpretation of Law
> that the appeals committee deems to be an idiosyncratically illegal
> interpretation of Law and/or a De Wael School interpretation of Law.
>

Yes I understand this and one appeal that is now fading into the
distant past where I appealed on a matter of law/regulation.  From
what I gather as it was not stated explicitly the appeal committee
concurred with me but the director refused to accept the
interpretation of the committee - in fact I don't believe it was an
interpretation he refused to accept the words in the regulation.  This
matter then went to a higher authority and while I have not had an
official communication I believe the higher appeal has been
successful.

I am deliberately being vague as I did not wish to discuss this matter
here.  Maybe when I do finally get a ruling I will discuss the
particulars in another thread.

I am more interested in what in general should happen as the result of
an appeal.  For simplicity assume the appeal is successful - which
usually means that I was not the appellent - and further that if there
was a matter of law that the director humbly agrees that his previous
interpretation as wrong and concedes to the appeal committee's
interpretation.

There is a moot point when an appeal is taken further to the national
authority.  Is the director still the sole judge of law?  Can that
appeal committee still only recommend a change to the director?

Further is the outcome from an ordinary appeal any different than what
we should expect as the outcome of appeal to a National Authority.
Again assume the appellent was successful and if necessary the
director agreed to any recommendation from the appeal committee if
necessary.

I reiterate that my questions on this are not based on any particular
case present or past.

Wayne