THE PROBLEM WITH INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY APPEAL PANELS............... ( Article By Professor HU Chi Ku Chi )

The usual selection process involves the chairman of the committee exercising his/her power to nominate " the candidates from which the appeal panel will be chosen " , the proviso being that they are experienced , well respected , long serving club members . The appellant of course is able to lodge objections against certain individuals , and so replacement names should be substituted to make up the final list from which the panelists will be randomly chosen.
However this power provides the chairman with an extraordinary and often insuperable advantage. By having the knowledge about certain club members,  and where their loyalties lie , this blessed insight can't help but influence the chairman's choice of names put forward for selection. If the chairman considers some members to be committee supporters , the likelihood of them being nominated is very high indeed. If on the other hand certain members are known to be sympathetic towards the appellant , these undesirables might well be overlooked and omitted from the candidate list. This is the obvious way by which the committee can secure a crucial edge even before the appeal hearing takes place.
Moreover , restricting the list to experienced , well respected , long serving club members often excludes those who are new to the club and far more likely to be impartial, along with those who possess the necessary legal skills to understand the nature of their judicial function, involving complex and difficult legal issues. If a panel has such shortcomings, major problems will arise. Will they have a real understanding of what amounts to alleged breaches of natural justice , procedural flaws in the initial stages of the disciplinary process , and whether or not the club has acted in an ultra vires way ( this requires of course a full grasp and correct interpretation of the club's by-laws and regulations ) ? Clearly , this is a tall order but one which needs to be met if the appeal is to be properly carried out. Distinctions also need to be made by the panel as to determine what is admissible and inadmissible evidence.  
Although usually well-intentioned , the panelists are often unsure of themselves ( or their role ) in such unfamiliar settings. For instance , if one of them was to state in writing , weeks before the scheduled hearing , that " I agree with the committee's decision to ban you " , then such an unfortunate remark smacks of real incompetence and  lack of integrity on his/her part.
However , the biggest problem regarding panel selection involves finding candidates who not only know their role , but who can carry it out with the required degree of impartiality and fairness. Given that impartiality is a principle of justice , whereby decisions should be based on objective criteria , to what extent is this possible when the human condition is prone to succumb to personal bias , prejudice or the desire to benefit one person over another for improper reasons ?
The quest to ensure a measure of impartiality surely requires the scrutinising of relationships the panelist are known to have with existing committee members and/or the appellant. All too often the panelists are not strangers to the individuals involved , and therefore must have established personal opinions about them. Members should not be nominated for panel selection if close relationships , friendships and existing feuds come to light. Indeed , members approached for selection should be asked to declare any known bias or prejudices held against committee members or the appellant. Indeed , it is an undeniable fact that any degree of bias can lead to panelists rejecting the strong evidence and weighty arguments introduced by one side , choosing instead to favour the flimsy evidence and shallow arguments introduced by the other side. Old prejudices which always lurk in the background of people's minds will often surface to distort their ability to be impartial and fair. 
So it seems to me the sensible way forward when dealing with the thorny problems of disciplinary appeals is to call in " outsiders with the necessary legal expertise " and pay the costs involved. Impartiality is more than likely going to be achieved , and the decisions made will then be based on an objective analysis of the facts in relation to established principles of law.