APPENDIX M - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTEST COMMITTEES

Check that the protest or request is valid.

• (a) Are the contents adequate (rule 60.3(a), 61.2(a) or 63.7(b))?
• (b) Was it delivered in time? If not, is there good reason to extend the time limit (rule 60.3(b), 61.2(b) or 63.7(b))?
• (c) When required, was the protestor involved in or a witness to the incident (rule 60.4(a)(2))?
• (d) When necessary, was ‘Protest’ hailed and, if required, a red flag displayed correctly (rule 60.2(a)(1))?
• (e) When the flag or hail was not necessary, was the protestee informed (rule 60.2(b))?
• (f) Decide whether the protest or request for redress is valid (rule 63.4(a)).
• (g) Once the validity of the protest or request has been determined, do not let the subject be introduced again unless truly new evidence is available.

Take the evidence (rule 63.4).

• (a) Ask the parties to tell their stories. Then allow them to question one another. In a redress matter, ask the party to state the request.
• (b) Make sure you know what facts each party is alleging before calling any witnesses. Their stories may be different.
• (c) Allow anyone, including a boat’s crew, to give evidence. It is the party who normally decides which witnesses to call, although the protest committee may also call witnesses (rule 63.4(b)). The question asked by a party ‘Would you like to hear N?’ is best answered by ‘It is your choice.’
• (d) Call each party’s witnesses (and the protest committee’s if any) one by one. Limit parties to questioning the witness(es). (They may wander into general statements.)
• (e) Invite the protestee to question the protestor’s witness first (and vice versa). This prevents the protestor from leading the witness from the beginning.
• (f) Allow members of the protest committee who saw the incident to give evidence (rule 63.4(d)). Members who give evidence may be questioned, should take care to relate all they know about the incident that could affect the decision, and may remain on the protest committee (rule 63.4(e)).
• (g) Try to prevent leading questions, but if that is impossible discount the evidence so obtained.
• (h) The protest committee chair should advise a party or a witness giving hearsay, repetitive or irrelevant evidence that the protest committee must give such evidence appropriate weight, which may be little or no weight at all (rules 63.4(b) and 63.5(a)).
• (i) Ask one member of the committee to note down evidence, particularly times, distances, speeds, etc.
• (j) Invite questions from protest committee members.
• (k) Invite each party, starting with the party that requested the hearing, to make a final statement of her case, particularly on any application or interpretation of the rules.

When a party, within the time limit, has asked for a hearing to be reopened, hear the party making the request, look at any video, etc., and decide whether there is any significant new evidence that might lead you to change your decision. Decide whether your interpretation of the rules may have been wrong; be open-minded as to whether you have made a mistake. If none of these applies refuse to reopen; otherwise schedule a hearing.

Evidence is ‘new’

• (a) if it was not reasonably possible for the party asking for the reopening to have discovered the evidence before the original hearing,
• (b) if the protest committee is satisfied that before the original hearing the evidence was diligently but unsuccessfully sought by the party asking for the reopening, or
• (c) if the protest committee learns from any source that the evidence was not available to the parties at the time of the original hearing.

An action under this rule is not a protest, but the protest committee gives its allegations in writing to the competitor before the hearing. The hearing is conducted under rule 63, but the protest committee must have at least three members (rule 69.2(a)). Use the greatest care to protect the competitor’s rights.

A competitor or a boat cannot protest under rule 69, but the hearing request form of a competitor who tries to do so may be accepted as a report to the protest committee, which can then decide whether or not to call a hearing.

Unless World Sailing has appointed a person for the role, the protest committee may appoint a person to present the allegation. This person might be a race official, the person making the allegation or other appropriate person. When no reasonable alternative person is available, a person who was appointed as a member of the protest committee may present the allegation.