This time Bigot-Johnson was being sued for wrongful expulsion by Pippa Pantopod , as she was the next in line to find her membership brutally terminated by the Slaughter House BC committee. Apparently , she had referred to them as lowdown, filthy, evil, brownshirt fascists , which caused Bigot to take umbrage over the word " brownshirt ". He was very proud of the fact that he and all his lackeys wore smart clean black shirts. A short extract from the trial's transcript appears below.
Counsel for the plaintiff ( CP ) : So far we have established that the committee failed to follow its own procedure as laid down in its own constitution and regulations
B-J : I refute that.....
CP : And we have also established a complete absence of natural justice in the manner and way the flawed procedure was carried out
B-J : I refute that....
CP : But what's more damning is that the degree of bias shown against Pippa Pantopod was so extreme , there wasn't a single shred of good faith to be seen anywhere during this shameful episode
B-J : Absolute rubbish.....all the committee members behaved in a proper and correct way with complete objectivity and impartiality.......and what's more .......... private club's disciplinary proceedings are not subject to judicial review
CP : Not so ..........for even when it comes to a private members' club.... the process , by which expulsion decisions are reached , are equally open to review by the courts. I admit that in such organisations the context of expulsions remains a difficult and grey area of the law , given their non-profiting-making character. However , the reality is that in all private member clubs there are far too many close and cosy relationships between the members , which therefore makes it impossible to find an unbiased decision makers.....
B-J : Well, there you are then.....we didn't behave out of the ordinary.......but what's more is that you still cannot prove the precise nature...or the extent of......any alleged bias
CP : Allow me to put you right on a point of law.....courts have acknowledged that the very nature of a domestic tribunals creates biased decision makers. However, the standard procedural fairness in respect of alleged bias or the apprehension of bias needs be no higher than the requirement that decisions makers approach the procedure in good faith with open minds....
B-J: We did ...we did...CP : Not so....for I have documentary evidence to show the court that certain committee members had expressed both their burning desire...and fierce determination....to sling poor Pippa out of the club.....long before the disciplinary process had even begun....
B-J : Oh.....
CP : The charge against you and your cronies is one of prejudgement , where all I have to do is establish a degree of closure, in that one or more members participated in the process with a closed mind . For instance , was the decision to expel the plaintiff reached after a fair and proper discussion ? For let's imagine independent observers had been there ....would they not regard your decision to expel as an adverse ....possibly perverse...... conclusion , given the one-sided discussion which actually took place ? Objectivity and impartiality was clearly missing from that discussion. All members must strive to be open minded and be prepared to listen....only to be swayed by the superior and weightier arguments........which were backed by concrete evidence. Closed minds will always imply bias by prejudgement.
B-J : Excuse me....some degree of prejudgement is inevitable ....and certainly inherent .....in my role as chairman.....CP : I agree....but when a committee member has a personal agenda......which you clearly had..... or an axe to grind.......or a personal ego at stake......then that decision maker should step down , or disqualify him/herself from being involved in the process. No one can claim to be exercising their duty to act in good faith , when a reasonably well-informed person looking on would conclude that the bias or prejudice had clearly influenced the exercise of that duty...
B-J : Oh......
CP : What you don't realise Bigot is the simple fact that bias is such an insidious thing that , even though a person may genuinely believe that he was acting impartially , his mind may unconsciously be affected by bias....
B-J : Which idiot said that ?
CP : Lord Justice Devlin in the Barnsley Licensing Justices case ......
B-J : Ooops........so OK then I'll come clean and admit my bias and hatred for this woman.... but even if I had voted the other way ...or abstained.... the rest of the committee's votes would have carried the expulsion decision through....
CP : I'm glad you raised that point.....because there lies the key question......whether or not the decision of a collective body is vitiated ...that is invalidated.....by the apprehension of bias in one or more of its members ? Courts have recently concluded that the collective decision could well be vitiated , even though the vote of the biased member was not decisive........simply because the decision making process has by all accounts been tainted in some way.
B-J : How come ?
CP : The reasoning should be obvious......given the close relationships that exist between certain committee members there is always a real possibility that other members will be easily affected .....eager to support and confirm...... the dominant biased member's views.... adopting in the process his/her actual or apparent inability to be fair .....Indeed , the concept of open and shut cases does not sit comfortably with the court's notion of justice and fairness. Therefore , all disciplinary proceedings require the alleged wrongdoer's conduct to be fully and properly investigated and explained.....followed by an even-sided and balanced discussion....... before a proportionate punishment can be ultimately determined.....Rushing to punishment refutes the claim that the above criteria had been met
B-J : Oh bugger.....
CP : So Bigot.....we have heard your confession of harbouring extreme bias against the plaintiff....which unfortunately for you and the club has undermined both the validity and credibility of the committee to act impartially.....therefore this court cannot help but come to the inescapable conclusion...... that the speedy punishment imposed upon poor Pippa was both wrongful ..... and very naughty !
B-J: Oh bugger....
CP : So finally we come to the matter of damages....and costs
B-J : Oh bugger.....
No comments:
Post a Comment