Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that having a Special Assistant Attorney General provide the final argument following questioning by a Rule 9 law student did not violate Rule 2 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, which provides that the tribunal shall provide for the fair administration of civil trials. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.