I have mentioned this before, but any organisation acting in a quasi-judicial way must follow the rules of Natural Justice or risk having their decision quashed by the High Court.
The concept includes the following principles:
• A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges);
• A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings;
• A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore cannot be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the Latin maxim, nemo iudex in causa sua: “no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause”;
• Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties – expressed in the Latin maxim, audi alteram : “let the other side be heard”;
• Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party;
• A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations;
• Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done they will continue to place their faith in the courts.
Note the third point in particular. It explains why City are questioning the choice of 'judge'. Quite correctly in my view, although I am no lawyer to say so. It seems to me that the judge(s) should preferably have no connections to football at all, but certainly not to PL rivals with an interest in the case.
