[blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> > >>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 appeals committee is still the higher authority (I prefer this word
rather than the word "tribunal"), but it is not empowered to try appeals
related to disciplinary rulings and it is only empowered to recommend the
Director to reconsider his rulings on questions of law, not to overrule him.
 
> 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."

Can laws or regulations be termed "tribunals" (or "authorities")? Neither
laws nor regulations can "make" any decision or ruling. 
 
> Who rules against the director when there has been a violation of L81B2?

The appeals committee should recommend him to reconsider his ruling. If he
maintains his ruling then an appeal to the national authority is the last
action available.
 
> >
> > 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.
> >

The use of "lower" and "higher" here is rather meaningless.

> 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.

When the appeal committee issues its ruling everybody is bound by that
ruling except that anybody involved in the appeal, including the Director,
may thereafter take an appeal further to the national authority. 

> 
> There is a moot point when an appeal is taken further to the national
> authority.  Is the director still the sole judge of law?  

Certainly not. The national authority has of course full jurisdiction and
may try all sides of a case (except that it should normally not try the
facts of the case but rather accept facts as they have been determined by
lower authorities).

> Can that
> appeal committee still only recommend a change to the director?

Which appeal committee? The national authority is no appeal committee.

> 
> 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.

Sorry ?????

A case is (usually) taken to the national authority with a claim that either
the appeal committee or the Director (when his ruling was final) has made an
incorrect ruling. 
 
Regards Sven