including those who did not vote for him, are entitled to expect that he will conduct himself to a high standard suitable to his office. That may well be so, but it does not mean that, if he falls below that high standard, the office as well as he are brought into disrepute. 42. In the skeleton arguments, considerable space was occupied in arguing what should be the court’s approach in considering appeals under s.79(15). CPR 52.11 applies. It provides that every appeal will be limited to a review of the decision of the lower court [or Tribunal] unless a practice direction provides otherwise or the court considers that in the circumstances of an individual appeal, it would be in the interests of justice to hold a rehearing (CPR 52.11(1)). The Practice Direction provides for a rehearing in the case of a number of appeals against disciplinary Tribunals. Appeals under s.79(15) are not included. The Practice Direction is, in my view, somewhat unsatisfactory and the distinction between what is required for a rehearing rather than a review is in any event somewhat indistinct. In Du Pont Trade Mark [2004] FSR 293, the Court of Appeal considered the distinction: see per May LJ at pp.324 to 326. He pointed out that the old RSC O.55, which dealt with appeals, referred to a rehearing, but it was always regarded as not being a rehearing in the fullest sense of the word. Rather, it “reviewed the decision under appeal giving it the respect appropriate to the nature of the court or Tribunal, the subject matter and, importantly, the nature of those parts of the decision making process which was challenged.” (Paragraph 90 on p.324). The same approach is applicable to rehearings under CPR 52.11. Thus at the lesser end, the meaning of rehearing merges with that of review. Perhaps the most important distinction is that in a rehearing, fresh evidence is likely to be admitted, if relevant and material, even though it does not pass the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489 test. However, in the end Mr Maurici accepted that the review approach was correct. Either approach involves giving weight to the fact that the Tribunal in question has expertise. This Tribunal sets the standards and has a member who has experience in local government. Thus I should and do give considerable weight to its judgment, but in this case that is not so important since the appeal turns more on the construction of the statutory provisions and of Paragraph 4 of the Code. Furthermore, in relation to Article 10, I do not think that the Tribunal has particular expertise. 43. Mr Maurici argued that the Tribunal had not made sufficient findings of fact. It did not need to make explicit findings of matters which were not in issue and what it said enabled the appellant to know why it had decided against him. I have referred to the matters relied on by the appellant to indicate his state of mind. There was no need for the Tribunal to spell them out in reaching its decision. It was open to Mr Maurici to rely on them in submitting that the decision was wrong and he did so. 44. I indicated in the course of argument that, whatever my decision on whether there had been a failure to comply with the Code, I would not uphold the sanction of suspension. It was in my view clearly wrong. 45. I must make it clear that this decision must not be taken as an indication that the appellant’s actions were appropriate. They clearly were not. His initial question: “Were you a German war criminal?” was obviously intemperate. However strongly he felt about the impropriety of the journalist’s conduct, the remark was unnecessarily offensive. In itself, it would not have led to the proceedings against the appellant. But, when he knew that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible. He should have realised it would not only give great offence to him but was likely to be regarded as an entirely