Lecture 24: Rule against bias Flashcards
What is the constitutional significance of impartiality?
Impartiality is a key element of judicial independence, which is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in governance.
What does the rule against bias require?
The rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) requires that adjudicators be unbiased. This ensures decisions are made without favouritism or prejudice, upholding the principle of fairness in judicial conduct.
What is the significance of impartiality according to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct?
According to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), impartiality is critical, and judges must perform their duties without bias to ensure fairness. The principles state that judges should avoid any favouritism, bias, or prejudice while carrying out their judicial responsibilities.
What is the rule of law’s requirement regarding bias in tribunals?
The rule of law requires that judicial tribunals be independent and impartial, making decisions based on legal and factual merits without external influences. This ensures fairness and equality before the law, as highlighted in Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34.
What is the difference between actual bias and apparent bias?
Actual Bias: This occurs when a judge has a personal interest in the outcome or a conflict of interest that prevents objectivity in their judgment. Actual bias is rare.
Apparent Bias: This refers to the appearance of bias, where a reasonable observer would perceive a real possibility of bias, even if none exists.
What does the test for apparent bias entail?
The test for apparent bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, after considering all the facts, would conclude that there is a real possibility the tribunal was biased. This test was articulated in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67.
Who is the “fair-minded and informed observer”?
The “fair-minded and informed observer” is someone who:
Remains detached and reserves judgment until both sides are fully understood.
Understands that fairness requires judges to be unbiased and, if necessary, can conclude that certain associations or actions make it difficult for a judge to remain impartial (Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008]).
What is the significance of the “fair-minded and informed observer” in bias cases?
The “fair-minded and informed observer” plays a key role in bias cases by being aware of all relevant matters, considering context, and objectively determining whether bias is present. They must also take into account all facts and understand the circumstances of the case (O’Neil v HM Advocate [2013]).
How does the UK approach apparent bias in relation to Article 6 ECHR?
The UK follows the same test for apparent bias as the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6 ECHR, ensuring that all parties are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. There is no difference between the common law and the ECHR test regarding bias (R v Abdroikof [2007] UKHL 37).
How does the rule against bias apply in administrative decisions?
The rule against bias in administrative decisions means that public officials must be free from any personal or financial interest in a decision. This ensures fairness in public law, not only in judicial or quasi-judicial bodies but also in administrative bodies, as seen in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Kirkstall Valley Campaign [1996].
When is the rule against bias inapplicable?
The rule against bias may not apply in certain situations:
Necessity: If no alternative decision-maker exists (e.g., quorum requirement).
Waiver: A party may waive objections to bias if they knew about disqualification but did not object.
Policy and political bias: In legislative bodies, political bias may be acceptable, but personal bias is not allowed.
What is predetermination in decision-making?
Predetermination occurs when a decision-maker has already formed a closed mind before considering all relevant arguments. While decision-makers may have prior views, a predetermined conclusion cannot be reached, as highlighted in R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland BC [2008].
