Lord Nimmo Smith defends impartiality of panel looking into Rangers alleged use of EBTs We must of course operate within the terms of our remit, and apply any rules which are applicable, but in reaching our final determination of the Issues, and in making any incidental decisions, we shall exercise our own judgement, on the basis of the evidence which is adduced, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and unfettered by the influence of the Board or of anyone else. It is well understood that the rules of natural justice require that a judge, or a person performing a quasi-judicial function, such as the Chairman of this Commission, must be free not only from actual bias but also from apparent bias in his determination of the Issues before him. The test for establishing apparent bias is authoritatively laid down in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, in which Lord Hope of Craighead said at paragraph 143: The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. Charles Green, the chief executive of the Rangers newco which took control at Ibrox in June after HMRC refused to agree to a deal that would have brought the oldco out of administration, has persistently criticised the SPL for their approach to the investigation and said this week: "In terms of this commission, if the SPL agenda prevails then Rangers will be found guilty and being found guilty we will lose five titles. What I said before is that this commission is not independent because the SPL have set it up. Saying that they are not independent is not saying that they are not impartial. Nimmo Smith has responded by detailing the remit of his tribunal and the legal case for stripping Rangers of titles - should the sanction be deemed appropriate - despite Green's assertion that the SPL has no power over the successor company. Nimmo Smith states: "To take the hypothetical example of a Club which has been engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL, there is every reason why it should still be liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL - whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership. We can think of many similar hypothetical examples. Lord Nimmo Smith's statement appears in full here.