Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:58:57.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who is the “Fair-Minded and Informed Observer”? Bias After Magill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Simon Atrill
Simon Atrill*
Affiliation:
St John’s College, Oxford
Get access

Extract

The rule against bias has undergone a number of modifications during the last ten years. In particular, two elements of the test for apparent bias have been widely debated, namely the degree of bias and the perspective from which bias should be viewed. The cases before 1992 on each element of the test were difficult to reconcile, but in R. v. Gough, Lord Goff held that the test required a “real danger” of bias when viewed from the perspective of the court. However, attempts were made to amend the test after forceful criticism by the High Court of Australia, and the related observation of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. that Gough abolished the principle that “justice must not only be done, but must also manifestly be seen to be done”.

Type
Shorter Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , 01 July 2003 , pp. 279 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Professor Paul Craig and Dr. Mark Elliott for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

1 These labels are adopted from Craig, P.P., Administrative Law, 4th edn., (London 1999)Google Scholar, ch. 14.

2 [1993] A.C. 646.

3 R. v. Webb (1994) 181 C.L.R. 41, at [9]-[10] (Mason C.J. and McHugh J.).

4 R. v. Inner West London Coroner, ex parte Dallaglio [1994] 4 All E.R. 139, 161.

5 [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 A.C. 357, at [102]-[103].

6 [2002] EWCA Civ 1380, T.L.R. 9 August 2002.

7 Op. cit. n. 6, at [54].

8 [2002] EWHC 1984, T.L.R. 8 October 2002, at [31].

9 [2002] EWCA Civ 1104, T.L.R. 19 August 2002, at [38].

10 Ibid., at [39].

11 Op. cit. n. 5, at [100].

12 [2000] HCA 48, at [11]-[13].

13 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391, at [97].

14 R. v. Lippé [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114, 152 (Lamer C.J., Sopinka and Cory J.J.), imputing “full knowledge of the Quebec municipal court system, including all of its safeguards”.

15 [2000] Q.B. 451.

16 Ibid., at [17].

17 Op. cit. n. 10, at [11].

18 Re Refugee Review Tribunal, ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 (2001) 179 A.L.R. 425.

19 [2002] UKPC 28.

20 ibid., at [3].

21 e.g., Williamson, op. cit. n. 6.

22 Magill, op. cit. n. 5, at [100]; In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No. 2) [2001] 1 W.L.R. 700, at [83].

23 R. v. Mason, [2002] EWCA Crim 385, [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 38, at [35].

24 Subject to an argument that an excess of these safeguards might themselves undermine public confidence by suggesting to the public that the judiciary were inherently biased.

25 Op. cit. n. 15, at [25].

26 R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Murray [1998] C.O.D. 134, P.P. Craig, “The Common Law, Reasons and Administrative Justice” (1994) 53 C.L.J. 282.

27 Mathews v. Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976).

28 [2001] UKHL 25, [2002] 1 A.C. 45, at [38], For more detailed discussion see S. Atrill, “Keeping the Executive in the Picture: A Reply to Professor Leigh” [2003] P.L. 40.

29 e.g., Stone v. Bolton [1950] 1 K.B. 201.

30 e.g., R. (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26, [2002] 2 A.C. 532 (proportionality).

31 Wade, H.W.R. and Forsyth, C.F., Administrative Law, 8th edn., (Oxford 2000), pp. 452–453Google Scholar.

32 Kingsley v. UK, (2000) 33 E.H.R.R. 288.

33 e.g., Mason, op. cit. n. 23.

34 Skjevesland v. Geveran Trading Co Ltd. (No. 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1567, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 912 at [43].

35 Relentless Records, op. cit. n. 8, at [51].

36 [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at [47].

37 Op. cit. n. 34, at [44].

38 A parallel might be drawn with the criticisms of the Wednesbury test: J. Jowell and A. Lester, “Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law” [1987] P.L. 368.

39 R. v. Henrick [2002] EWCACrim 308, at [18].

40 Compare R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign [1996] 4 All E.R. 304. In Canada, the “legislative nature” of the decision affected the test to be applied in Save Richmond Farmland Society v. Richmond [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1213.

41 Op. cit. n. 34, at [42].

42 A. Olowofoyeku, “The Nemo Judex Rule: The Case Against Automatic Disqualification” [2000] P.L. 456.

43 [2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] Q.B. 528.

44 Ebner v. The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63, (2000) 176 A.L.R. 644 at [54].