On 10/6/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to
be brought forth.
They judge on points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the
lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material
that is often raised.
I don't guarantee that the ArbCom would elect to refuse to consider
new evidence on appeal. However, just having the case marshalled for
review through the process of the preceding magisterial process will
immensely help the ArbCom in its determinations.
The other appeal to a tiered system is that it will scale far better
than most of the other proposals I've seen. Any system which has
ArbCom as a court of original jurisdiction is going to have scaling
problems in the long term, IMO.
Absolutely. Having a single arbitrator rule on a new appeal would
probably lead to a quicker result. This could be appealed to a panel,
but the panel members should not accept to hear every case that comes
before them. If they make a habit of accepting everything, then
everything will be appealed.. By taking a stricter approach to this and
what they will accept as evidence their task can be much easier.
Ec