A golfer who was banned from a Royal club over allegations of cheating has won a High Court battle to allow her to return to the course.
Rina Rohilla had her membership terminated by the Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club, once captained by King Edward VIII, after she was accused of fiddling her scores in 2019.
It was claimed she rubbed out and re-entered her scores on two holes to bring her total down by two strokes.
The insolvency practitioner sued, claiming she was unfairly kicked out of the club due to being ‘universally disliked’ by fellow members.
She also claimed that there was an element of racism, although the judge found no evidence to suggest this.
The court heard that an unofficial ‘file’ of her ‘misdeeds’ was kept by club higher-ups – an informal term for a list of problems members had shared with them.
Ms Rohilla has now won her battle and forced the club to give her membership back. Judge Andrew Holmes said she was a victim of a ‘stitch up’.
Giving his verdict, Judge Holmes said there was a ‘clear dislike’ for Ms Rohilla among some at the club, which infiltrated the decision making when she was accused.
He said some ‘minds were made up’ about her guilt soon after she was accused and that there had been ‘clear bias’ against her, with a ‘clear desire to secure her expulsion.’
‘The atmosphere created and the clear desire by some to secure expulsion polluted the atmosphere even for those who did come free of bias,’ he said.
‘I found Ms Rohilla to be an honest witness and I found no basis upon which I could have concluded that she was lying to me when she denied that she had changed the scores,’ he added.
Judge Holmes heard Ms Rohilla had joined the club – which gained Royal status by command of King George V in 1926 – in 2003 and was ‘devoted’ to golf.
The club began in 1892, but was transformed by its legendary professional, five times Open Champion JH Taylor into two 18-hole courses across 296 acres of land next to Kew Gardens
Ms Rohilla’s barrister, Josh Crow, told the judge that she had found herself ‘unpopular’ with ‘a core clique’ at the club, including elements of its management. He referenced emails where members of the Club’s Captain Committee said they want to ‘take on’ Rina but could not do so without ‘cast iron’ evidence.
One club member complained in an email about her ‘gamesmanship, the terrible way in which she treats her opponents and how difficult it is to arrange matches with her’.
Her expulsion from the club stemmed from her participation in the Harare 125 Bowl competition in September 2019, during which she played a round with two fellow lady golfers.
The court heard that Ms Rohilla’s score was marked by opponent Eva Haupt – who allegedly rubbed out scores of six on holes three and six, replacing them with fives – allegedly at Ms Rohilla’s direction. They were using Stableford scoring – in which larger scores are best.
Instead of sixes on holes three and six, the scores had been rubbed out and replaced with fives.
Ms Rohilla recorded the fives and was immediately challenged and accused of making the alteration herself.
She denied cheating, but the matter was passed on to the club’s Captain’s Committee and subsequently the General Management Committee (GMC), which terminated her membership.
After an investigation, the club found that she had cheated by altering the scores on the scorecard, which she then entered into the computer.
But in court, Mr Crow argued that some club members had ‘smelled blood’ after the allegation and assumed her guilt, and that she was subjected to a ‘stitch-up’ to get rid of an unpopular member.
He claimed the decision-making process was ‘fundamentally flawed’ and that Ms Rohilla was not provided a ‘fair opportunity’ to defend herself as she was not given adequate notice of the case against her.
Ruling in her favour following last month’s trial, Judge Holmes said the decision to kick her out was a ‘breach of natural justice’ and ‘breach of contract.’
He said the main reason was that Ms Rohilla had not been provided with the full conclusions of the Captains’ Committee before she went before the club’s management committee.
The conclusions included at least two pieces of evidence which counted against her, but she was not offered an opportunity to ‘respond to those allegations,’ he said.
He continued: ‘In addition, the breach of natural justice is founded upon the obvious bias shown against Ms Rohilla by those responsible for investigating the allegation and some of those who took the decision.
‘There was a clear desire to secure Ms Rohilla’s expulsion from the club because of the dislike for her felt by those involved.
‘This was evidenced in the various emails and the failure to consider the arguments that she was seeking to advance in response. The process adopted was the antithesis of fair.
‘At a very early stage, minds were made up and, at least for some, the aim was to secure the expulsion of an unpopular member.’
He said the then club and management committee chairman Chris Holt had seen himself as ‘both prosecutor and judge’ in the disciplinary process.
‘I do have some sympathy for Mr Holt as he was under very considerable pressure from certain people within the club to ensure that Ms Rohilla was excluded from membership come what may. Ms Mayes chief amongst them.
‘He was not assisted by the absence of an independent process within the rules. But he quickly became part of the prosecution team and he had made up his mind of Ms Rohilla’s guilt long before he heard her side of the incident.’
‘In my judgment there was a clear dislike of Ms Rohilla.
‘This was taken into account by a number of people within the club, both on the Captains’ Committee, and more importantly on the GMC.
‘Even those who might not have been aware, at least of the detail, were quickly informed of it. This enmity permeated into the decision-making process.. There was a clear bias against her.’
He added: ‘The key people involved in investigating, and a number of those voting on the GMC, had determined Ms Rohilla’s guilt long before she had been provided with the opportunity to answer the allegations.’
However, he said there was ‘no evidence to support any suggestion that anyone in the club was motivated in any way by Ms Rohilla’s race.’
‘A process which complied with the principles of natural justice and good faith may well have concluded either that Ms Rohilla did not cheat or that the allegation was not proved,’ he added.
The judge ordered that she be reinstated as a member and awarded her £1,000 compensation for ‘injury to feelings.’
During the trial, Mrs Rohilla had said that golf was her ‘entire life’ outside work and she had not played since she was expelled, causing her ‘severe mental distress’ and a ‘loss of reputation by being labelled a dishonest cheat.’
The judge said: ‘It is impossible in a case such as this to reflect the loss suffered in monetary terms.
‘I accept that she has been caused inconvenience and upset as a result of the actions of the club.
‘She is entitled to some modest compensation for that and in my judgment the sum I have set out is the appropriate measure.’
