Ãå±±½ûµØ

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due process rights would have been met in relation to witness statements of both identified and unidentified witnesses if the witnesses’ statements have been provided to the staff member and the staff member has had an opportunity to comment on, and respond to, the statements. Legal representation: The Tribunal noted that section 49 of the OIOS Manual denies legal representation while compelling a staff member to answer questions during the preliminary investigation. The Tribunal questioned the fairness of such a rule, but concluded that it has no choice but to follow the precepts of UNAT that at the stage of the preliminary investigation an accused staff member has no right to legal representation. Admissibility of admissions: The Tribunal held that: (a) before an admission can be admitted, it must be reduced to writing; and (b) notes taken during an interview may be admissible if they are contemporaneous notes that satisfy the test of contemporaneity (that is the statements given by the person interrogated are taken down by the note taker verbatim and are taken at the very moment the person is speaking or reasonably soon thereafter).