Rule 63.2, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing; Time for Parties to Prepare
Part 5 of the racing rules aims to protect a boat from miscarriage of justice, not to provide loopholes for protestees. A protestee has a duty to protect herself by acting reasonably before a hearing.
Summary of the Facts
Two close-hauled port-tack boats, W and L, were approaching a windward mark
to be left to port. W became overlapped inside L five to six hull lengths from
the mark and hailed L for mark-room to round it. L refused, saying that W was
not entitled to mark-room on a beat. W passed the mark on the wrong side, circled
back, rounded the mark leaving it to port, displayed a protest flag, and informed
L that a protest would be lodged. The protest committee found as fact that W
became overlapped inside L in proper time. L was disqualified under rule 18.2(b)
and appealed.
The appeal alleged that, contrary to rule 63.2, L’s helmsman became aware
that a hearing was being held only when he was told to attend it; he was refused
permission to read the protest outside the hearing room but was required to
read it while the hearing was in progress; and he was not given a reasonable
time to prepare a defence. Further, the appeal alleged that no evidence was
presented in the hearing to establish that W had become overlapped inside L
in proper time.
The protest committee commented upon the appeal as follows: the time of the
hearing was posted on the official notice board; W’s protest was lodged
with the race office and was available for reading for well over an hour prior
to that time; her helmsman informed L’s helmsman that the protest had
been lodged; he made no effort to prepare a defence; and he had to be summoned
from the club’s dining room when the protest committee, the other party,
and the witnesses were assembled and ready to proceed.
Decision
L’s appeal is dismissed for the reasons given by the protest committee
in its comments. L’s helmsman knew that his boat was being protested,
and it was his duty to protect himself by acting reasonably, which included
seeking out W’s protest form, reading it, and using the ample time available
to prepare his defence. The national authority is satisfied that the protest
committee’s conclusion that W became overlapped in time was drawn from
the facts the committee found based on evidence that it heard. Those facts are
not appealable (see rule 70.1).
RYA 1980/5