Jump to content

Lord Nimmo Smith defends impartiality of panel


ray

Recommended Posts

Lord Nimmo Smith defends impartiality of panel looking into Rangers alleged use of EBTs

Lord Nimmo Smith, the Scottish High Court judge in charge of the independent investigation set up by the SPL to look into the charge that Rangers may have failed to disclose Employee Benefit Trust payments to players from 2001-11 – in breach of the rules – has issued a strongly worded defence of the impartiality of his panel, which also includes two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint.

The statement says: “In most cases, it would not be necessary to discuss this topic, but in the circumstances of the present case we think it appropriate to do so.

“It is fundamental to the constitution of a body with investigatory and disciplinary powers, such as the present Commission, that it must act independently of the person or body appointing it.

“We must of course operate within the terms of our remit, and apply any rules which are applicable, but in reaching our final determination of the Issues, and in making any incidental decisions, we shall exercise our own judgement, on the basis of the evidence which is adduced, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and unfettered by the influence of the Board or of anyone else.

“None of us would have accepted his appointment on any other basis. We have the use of SPL premises and are assisted by SPL staff, but this is because we have given instructions to that effect; the members of staff, in particular, act under our instructions.”

In another section of his statement, Nimmo Smith buttressed his argument by use of legal precedent:

“It is well understood that the rules of natural justice require that a judge, or a person performing a quasi-judicial function, such as the Chairman of this Commission, must be free not only from actual bias but also from apparent bias in his determination of the Issues before him. The test for establishing apparent bias is authoritatively laid down in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, in which Lord Hope of Craighead said at paragraph 143:

"The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased."

Charles Green, the chief executive of the Rangers newco which took control at Ibrox in June after HMRC refused to agree to a deal that would have brought the oldco out of administration, has persistently criticised the SPL for their approach to the investigation and said this week: "In terms of this commission, if the SPL agenda prevails then Rangers will be found guilty and being found guilty we will lose five titles.

"What I said before is that this commission is not independent because the SPL have set it up. Saying that they are not independent is not saying that they are not impartial.”

Nimmo Smith has responded by detailing the remit of his tribunal and the legal case for stripping Rangers of titles – should the sanction be deemed appropriate – despite Green’s assertion that the SPL has no power over the successor company.

Nimmo Smith states: “To take the hypothetical example of a Club which has been engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL, there is every reason why it should still be liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL – whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership.

“We can think of many similar hypothetical examples”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Lord Nimmo Smith defends impartiality of panel looking into Rangers alleged use of EBTs

Lord Nimmo Smith, the Scottish High Court judge in charge of the independent investigation set up by the SPL to look into the charge that Rangers may have failed to disclose Employee Benefit Trust payments to players from 2001-11 – in breach of the rules – has issued a strongly worded defence of the impartiality of his panel, which also includes two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint.

The statement says: “In most cases, it would not be necessary to discuss this topic, but in the circumstances of the present case we think it appropriate to do so.

“It is fundamental to the constitution of a body with investigatory and disciplinary powers, such as the present Commission, that it must act independently of the person or body appointing it.

“We must of course operate within the terms of our remit, and apply any rules which are applicable, but in reaching our final determination of the Issues, and in making any incidental decisions, we shall exercise our own judgement, on the basis of the evidence which is adduced, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and unfettered by the influence of the Board or of anyone else.

“None of us would have accepted his appointment on any other basis. We have the use of SPL premises and are assisted by SPL staff, but this is because we have given instructions to that effect; the members of staff, in particular, act under our instructions.”

In another section of his statement, Nimmo Smith buttressed his argument by use of legal precedent:

“It is well understood that the rules of natural justice require that a judge, or a person performing a quasi-judicial function, such as the Chairman of this Commission, must be free not only from actual bias but also from apparent bias in his determination of the Issues before him. The test for establishing apparent bias is authoritatively laid down in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, in which Lord Hope of Craighead said at paragraph 143:

"The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased."

Charles Green, the chief executive of the Rangers newco which took control at Ibrox in June after HMRC refused to agree to a deal that would have brought the oldco out of administration, has persistently criticised the SPL for their approach to the investigation and said this week: "In terms of this commission, if the SPL agenda prevails then Rangers will be found guilty and being found guilty we will lose five titles.

"What I said before is that this commission is not independent because the SPL have set it up. Saying that they are not independent is not saying that they are not impartial.”

Nimmo Smith has responded by detailing the remit of his tribunal and the legal case for stripping Rangers of titles – should the sanction be deemed appropriate – despite Green’s assertion that the SPL has no power over the successor company.

Nimmo Smith states: “To take the hypothetical example of a Club which has been engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL, there is every reason why it should still be liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL – whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership.

“We can think of many similar hypothetical examples”.

Wow! Lord Nimmo Smith can fuck off, hypothetically of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Nimmo Smith defends impartiality of panel looking into Rangers alleged use of EBTs

Nimmo Smith has responded by detailing the remit of his tribunal and the legal case for stripping Rangers of titles – should the sanction be deemed appropriate

There is nothing in the rules which mention stripping of titles. It does say that the SPL can apply any punishment they see fit. But the commission is not the SPL. Do the commission have the power to invent punishments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

“To take the hypothetical example of a Club which has been engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL, there is every reason why it should still be liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL – whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership.

“We can think of many similar hypothetical examples”.

I bet you can Mr Dimmo Smith...

Who is we?...You and Liewell?

We were never involved in match fixing so don't try and open up avenues that are non-existant and try to compare both.

Rangers fans want to deal in FACTS not hypothesis..

Make sure and tell that to all the other skippies in your kangaroo court!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the SPL/SFA started the investigation into Rangers prior HMRC verdict. I thought the process was HMRC gives a verdict, if found guilty, then the governing bodies take action.

Is this why they have postponed their verdict, untill after HMRC have given theirs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

“To take the hypothetical example of a Club which has been engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL, there is every reason why it should still be liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL – whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership.

“We can think of many similar hypothetical examples”

Is he ripping the piss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the rules which mention stripping of titles. It does say that the SPL can apply any punishment they see fit. But the commission is not the SPL. Do the commission have the power to invent punishments?

there is it's G6.1.12 which states the SPL can withdraw or withhold the award of a title or award.

its G6.1.18 thst allows the SPL them to make any other sanction up as they see fit.

The commission will state a sanction from the pre-set list, if it's G6.1.18 then the SPL can do what they like and it's only this sanction that an award could be given to someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's already proved he's bias by taking advice from the SFA and allowing a punishment of the illegal transfer embargo, that wasn't even on their list of punishments. He then compounded it by passing it on to the appellate tribunal to punish us. The guy is either bent or just fooking dumb or both. :cgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goes for the max fixing analogy that has been used by so many of those who wish us ill, by the very use of this phrase he brings their so called commission into doubt. Rangers have never fixed any matches and green should be on this like a ton of bricks question who if anyone promted him to use this precise phrase.

Also the illegal sanction of the transfer embargo brings into question his competence IMO, he should have known that it was an option not open to him by the rule book surely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be losing my marbles. Did Mr nimmo just release a statement regarding his fair minded impartiallity, and within that statement he makes a hypothetical analogy of match fixing and the penalties involved.

I'd think this is not his first case, and he doesn't see the "coloured" nature of that...........honestly?

I am at a complete loss....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...