Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
1
DETERMINATION: DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNALTHE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB plc and MR CRAIG WHYTE
NOTE OF REASONS
 
The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal Hearing took place over six days: 29 March, 6April (Procedural Hearings) and a Principal Hearing on 17, 18, 20 and 23 April 2012 atHampden Park, Glasgow. The Tribunal heard the conjoined hearings of the
complaints against The Rangers Football Club plc (“Rangers FC”) and Mr Craig Whyte.
 The Compliance Officer Mr Vincent Lunny presented the Complaints on behalf of the
Scottish Football Association. (“the Scottish FA”)
 The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) was represented by Mr AndrewDickson, its Head of Football Administration; Mr Simon Shipperlee, of Messrs Duff and Phelps, the Administrators, and Mr Michael McLaughlin, Solicitor, of BiggartBaillie LLP.Mr Craig Whyte was not in attendance, nor was he represented.Having satisfied itself that Mr Whyte had been given fair notice of the proceedingsand of the hearing of 17 April 2012, the Tribunal noted that neither he nor anyrepresentative had made recent contact in any way with the Tribunal Secretary, orthe Scottish FA Compliance Officer. No written representation or response to theNotice of Complaint had been submitted after an earlier bare denial of the allegedbreaches was intimated by his former solicitors (who had since intimated to thePanel that they were no longer acting), nor had any application been made to theTribunal for the giving or leading of evidence, or making of submissions at thePrincipal Hearing by any of the electronic means provided for in Paragraph 10.2.3 of the Judicial Panel Protocol.The Tribunal, having on 6 April 2012 made an order under Paragraph 8.5.7 of theJudicial Panel Protocol compelling the attendance of Mr Whyte at the hearing on 17April 2012 to assist the Tribunal in its enquiries, and he having failed to do so, foundMr Whyte to be in breach of that order and accordingly in breach of Rule 105 of theScottish FA Disciplinary Rules.
 
2
The Tribunal directed that the question of any sanction which might be appliedshould be continued to the conclusion of the proceedings before it. It noted that MrWhyte had on 6 April 2012 also been found to be in breach of two orders of theTribunal under the Judicial Panel Protocol made on 29 March 2012 and the questionof any sanction which might be applied in respect of those matters was alsocontinued to the conclusion of the proceedings.The Tribunal, having regard to the desirability of progressing the disciplinary mattersbefore it without further delay, and in the absence of any representation otherwise,and being satisfied in terms of Paragraph 8.3.1.8 of the Judicial Panel Protocol thatMr Whyte had been given fair notice of the proceedings and in particular thesubstantive hearing set for 17 April 2012, directed that notwithstanding Mr Whytewas absent, it would proceed to hear the evidence and submissions and proceed toDeterminations in relation to the complaints against both Rangers FC and Mr Whyte.The Tribunal noted
Mr Whyte’s failure to lodge a substantive written response to the
Notice of Complaint as directed by the Tribunal on 29 March 2012, and noted thatalthough it would be entitled in terms of Paragraph 10.5.2.1 to deny or restrict theextent to which Mr Whyte
’s bare denial was given effect in the hearing, for the
avoidance of doubt, it would proceed on the basis that there was an absolute denialon his part of each element of the alleged breach of the rules in all its particulars.The Tribunal directed that accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that in itswritten responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual avermentsand a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, under explanation and mitigation,the Tribunal would require to establish a clear factual basis for its Determination of both any alleged breaches and, if applicable, any sanction against either or bothRangers FC or Mr Whyte. There appeared to be a clear conflict in the position of Rangers FC and the deemed absolute denial by Mr Whyte upon which the Tribunalwas proceeding. The commission and the circumstances of the alleged breacheswould therefore require to be established by the leading of evidence before theTribunal and the Tribunal would require to be satisfied in terms of Paragraph 10.9.1that the alleged breaches were proven against the parties on the basis of a balance of probabilities test.It noted in terms of Paragraph 10.5.2.2 of the Judicial Panel Protocol that theTribunal was en
titled (though not bound) to draw such inferences from Mr Whyte’s
non-compliance with its direction to lodge a substantive written response as itconsidered to be fair and reasonable, including adverse inferences.
 
3
A discussion in relation to the procedure to be adopted took place. It was agreed thatthe Compliance Officer Mr Lunny would lead evidence
ex parte
by submission andreference to documentary material but would lead no witnesses, and would invitethe Tribunal to accept the evidence in that form as provided in the Judicial PanelProtocol. Mr McLaughlin for Rangers FC, standing its position on the complaintscontained in the written response previously submitted had neither issues with thatproposal nor any other objection to the procedure which would be adopted. Anopportunity would then be afforded to Rangers FC to lead evidence and makesubmissions as Mr McLaughlin on its behalf saw fit. Mr McLaughlin intimated that hewould be likely to lead evidence from four witnesses previously intimated to theCompliance Officer and the Tribunal in terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol.The Tribunal indicated that it would deal with the issues of Determination of theestablishment of any alleged breach of the rules and if appropriate any applicablesanction separately. Any submission or issue in relation to sanction which mightattach to any established breach would be dealt with after a Determination on thebreach question.With the consent of parties, the Tribunal Secretary was authorised to record theproceedings electronically but solely for the purpose of supporting her own detailedwritten notes. Parties indicated that it was understood that no transcription shouldbe anticipated or was intended nor were the recordings to be used for any otherpurpose. Like all materials they would remain confidential.There were no preliminary objections to the Notices of Complaint, or procedures, norwere there any other preliminary matters raised by parties.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more