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

[ian1964 10,625]

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 â?? in breach of the rules â?? 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: â??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.

 

â??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.

 

â??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.

 

â??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.â?

 

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

 

â??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 â?? should the sanction be deemed appropriate â?? despite Greenâ??s assertion that the SPL has no power over the successor company.

 

Nimmo Smith states: â??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 â?? whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership.

 

â??We can think of many similar hypothetical examplesâ?.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9559456/Lord-Nimmo-Smith-defends-impartiality-of-panel-looking-into-Rangers-alleged-use-of-EBTs.html

[der Berliner 3,565]

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.

 

As in: a club has been relegated. The reason for that is secondary, but if a club has been relegated, it can be punished. It (i.e. Juve) was relegated for match-fixing and that was the direct reason for it being relegated. Rangers, on the contrary, have not been "relegated" as this is not possible in a one tier league, it was not allowed to re-enter as it was no longer a member nor were they re-accepted. (The company, but for argument's sake, we ignore that bit.) Yet, the reason for not being allowed in again was not "match-fixing", but something not even remotly concerned with match-fixing, financial doping or whatnot. It was plain and downright technicalities. If anything, the only "financial doping" he could lay upon our doors as that done by Whyte, a point not even mentioned anywhere.

 

So why can he even come up with this sort of hypothetical links? Any half-decent hedge-lawyer could rip him a new one if he goes on with such lines of thought ...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

the last 2 independent commissions against us punished us illegally.

 

but regardless of that. they are paid by the SPL. chosen by the spl. working with the spl staff in SPL offices.

 

does that sound independent.

[ian1964 10,625]

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.

 

The only match fixing that went on in the SPL was when the BHEASTS pretended to be upset at the death of a former,bit part,player and a non existent tour of Japan.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

yeah they are obsessed with "match fixing"

[der Berliner 3,565]

I'd take this straight to FIFA and UEFA ... might be I do this actually. There is nothing impartial in here, it is driven by we-know-who, predetermined and the rest is a beyond joke.

 

Will do later today or tomorrow. The more of us doing it, the greater the chance we get them involved or at least looking over the SPL's & SFA's shoulder.

[der Berliner 3,565]

How many Spanish sides have been relegated or even fined by their FA or UEFA for open financial doping, BTW? Or had titles stripped? Athletico Madrid?

[biggordy 0]

I'd take this straight to FIFA and UEFA ... might be I do this actually. There is nothing impartial in here, it is driven by we-know-who, predetermined and the rest is a beyond joke.

 

Will do later today or tomorrow. The more of us doing it, the greater the chance we get them involved or at least looking over the SPL's & SFA's shoulder.

 

What about the fact that the SPL/SFA had already decided Rangers are "guilty" by demanding we hand back titles and trophies won during the period in question.

 

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4551484/We-see-secret-document-that-says-Hampden-beaks-wanted-Gers-stripped-of-9-trophies.html

 

I thought that by announcing Rangers are guilty PRIOR to any "trial" means this present inquiry is prejudiced by that announcement, surely ?

[Zappa 0]

Impartiality?

 

Amidst a minefield of real, genuine collusion and conspiracy to well and truly shaft our club, here's a wee conspiracy theory to chew on....

 

If Nimmo Smith (and company) decide to strip us of titles at the SPL's Rangers-stitch-up-soiree in November and the club take the matter to court, the now completely corrupted SFA will threaten us with expulsion from Scottish football.

 

You heard it here first.

[ian1964 10,625]

THE SCOTTISH Premier League has amassed a “stack of evidence” concerning Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) and alleged dual contracts which is to be investigated by the Independent Commission chaired by the retired judge Lord William Nimmo Smith.

 

Sources at the SPL claim that various routes had been used – including a reluctant Rangers FC itself – to obtain documents relating to the incomes of various players at Ibrox, via EBTs, in the years between 2000 and 2011. The three-man commission, which comprises Lord Nimmo Smith, Nicholas Smith QC and Charles Flint QC, will sit for four days from 13 November to determine Rangers’ guilt or innocence in regard to payments or undisclosed loans to players.

 

The SPL has warned Rangers, who have said they will not acknowledge the commission, that such a stance could be potentially self-harming should the commission’s verdict go against the Ibrox club and it chooses to appeal.

 

Meanwhile, Nimmo Smith has explained why, contrary to the claims of Rangers chief executive Charles Green, he believes “oldco” Rangers and the current Rangers FC represent one entity and thus still fall within the SPL’s jurisdiction. Green and Rangers believe that, as their “newco” is not and never has been a member of the SPL, the appointed commission has no jurisdiction over it. But Nimmo Smith has countered that view.

 

“It is the club, not the owner, who plays in the league,” he said. “The rules clearly contemplate sanctions upon a club, in distinction to upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply, even if the owner at the time of [any] breach of rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has passed to another owner or operator.”

 

As for any lapse in time since any alleged breaches by Rangers occurred, Nimmo Smith added: “To take a hypothetical example of a club which has been engaged in match-fixing 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, whether or not the breach comes to light before or after the club has relinquished its SPL membership.”

 

But Nimmo Smith went on to add: “We stress that the commission has not yet come to the stage of deciding whether there have been any breaches of rules at all by either ‘oldco’ or Rangers FC.”

 

Nimmo Smith also admitted he had to re-assert his own impartiality in the looming investigation, after Rangers objected to him being appointed chair of the commission. It has emerged that Rangers initially es at the SPL claim that various routes had been used – including a reluctant Rangers FC itself – to obtain documents relating to the incomes of various players at Ibrox, via EBTs, in the years between 2000 and 2011. The three-man commission, which comprises Lord Nimmo Smith, Nicholas Smith QC and Charles Flint QC, will sit for four days from 13 November to determine Rangers’ guilt or innocence in regard to payments or undisclosed loans to players.

 

The SPL has warned Rangers, who have said they will not acknowledge the commission, that such a stance could be potentially self-harming should the commission’s verdict go against the Ibrox club and it chooses to appeal.

 

Meanwhile, Nimmo Smith has explained why, contrary to the claims of Rangers chief executive Charles Green, he believes “oldco” Rangers and the current Rangers FC represent one entity and thus still fall within the SPL’s jurisdiction. Green and Rangers believe that, as their “newco” is not and never has been a member of the SPL, the appointed commission has no jurisdiction over it. But Nimmo Smith has countered that view.

 

“It is the club, not the owner, who plays in the league,” he said. “The rules clearly contemplate sanctions upon a club, in distinction to upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply, even if the owner at the time of [any] breach of rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has passed to another owner or operator.”

 

As for any lapse in time since any alleged breaches by Rangers occurred, Nimmo Smith added: “To take a hypothetical example of a club which has been engaged in match-fixing 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, whether or not the breach comes to light before or after the club has relinquished its SPL membership.”

 

But Nimmo Smith went on to add: “We stress that the commission has not yet come to the stage of deciding whether there have been any breaches of rules at all by either ‘oldco’ or Rangers FC.”

 

Nimmo Smith also admitted he had to re-assert his own impartiality in the looming investigation, after Rangers objected to him being appointed chair of the commission. It has emerged that Rangers initially objected to Nimmo Smith’s appointment to the investigation, after he had already fulfilled a similar role for the SFA over a separate Rangers case in May. That report led to the SFA charging Craig Whyte and the Ibrox club with bringing the game into disrepute.

 

Rangers subsequently dropped their concerns over Nimmo Smith, but the former Supreme Court judge admits he was forced to consider his position. “It is well understood that a judge, or anyone performing a quasi-judicial function, must be free not only of actual bias, but also of apparent bias,” said Nimmo Smith. “Our commission has given careful consideration to this question and has concluded that the fair-minded observer would not conclude there would be any possibility that the chairman was biased.”

 

The SPL has come under pressure over an alleged offer to Rangers to accept a retrospective stripping of titles – an offer made before any Rangers guilt had been established – but Nimmo Smith emphasised his investigation would be independent and free from influence by the SPL or anyone else.

 

“It is fundamental to any body with investigatory power, such as this commission, that we act independent to the person or body [sPL] appointing us,” he said. “In reaching our final determination we shall exercise our own judgment in accordance with natural justice, unfettered by the influence of the [sPL] board or anyone else. None of us would have accepted this appointment on any other basis.”

 

Nimmo Smith added that, despite Rangers’ open contempt for the investigation, he still hoped the Ibrox club would change its mind and come forward and participate in the process.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/newco-rangers-must-answer-oldco-charges-insists-commission-chief-1-2542646