It has been suggested that the differences between the two tests are largely semantic and that the two tests work similarly. In the Locabai case, the judges stated that in a large proportion of cases, the application of both tests would lead to the same result. It was also stated that “[t]he fact that the court, as the personification of the reasonable man, adopts an approach based on general common sense, and without undue reliance on special knowledge, details of the trial or other matters beyond the competence of the reasonably well-informed ordinary public, There should be no risk: that the courts will not ensure that justice is done as well as it is perceived by the public. to do.” [20]: 477 In Singapore High Court decision Tang Kin Hwa v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (2005),[14] Justice Commissioner Andrew Phang has concluded that the real likelihood test is in fact similar to that of reasonable suspicion. First, probability is actually a “possibility,” as opposed to the higher standard of proof, which focuses on “probability.” Second, he proposed that actual probability could not be understood as “real” because this criterion refers to an apparent bias, not a real bias. He also noted that the views of the Court and the public are “part and parcel of a holistic process” without the need to make a clear distinction between them. [14]: 617–8 A form of alleged bias is based on the fact that the decision-maker is a party to a dispute or has a financial or property interest in the outcome of the decision. Once this fact is established, bias is irrefutable and disqualification is automatic – the decision-maker is excluded from the decision on the case, without the need to investigate the likelihood or suspicion of bias. [18] A classic case is Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852),[18] which involved a dispute between Dimes, a local landowner, and the owners of the Grand Junction Canal, in which the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, had confirmed the orders issued to the owners. However, it was discovered by Dimes that Lord Cottenham actually owned several stock books on the Grand Junction Canal.
This eventually led to the judge being excluded from the decision on the case. There was no inquiry into whether a reasonable person would regard Lord Cottenham as biased, or into the circumstances which led Lord Cottenham to hear the case. A person cannot make an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest, because, as human psychology tells us, people can very rarely make decisions against their own interests. The true likelihood test focuses on whether the facts as assessed by the court give rise to a real likelihood of bias. [22] In R. v. Gough (1993),[23] the House of Lords decided to describe the test as a “real danger of bias” and noted that the test was about the possibility, not the probability, of bias. Lord Goff of Chievely also stated that “the court should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man, because in cases such as these the court personifies the reasonable man.” [23]:670 However, the Gough test has been rejected in some Commonwealth jurisdictions.
One critical point is that the focus on the court`s view of the facts does not sufficiently emphasize public perception. [24] This criticism was echoed by the House of Lords in Porter v. Magill (2001). [25] The Court adjusted the Gough test by stating that the question was “whether, after considering the facts, the honest and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.” [25]: 494 In this case, it was therefore concluded that the current test in the United Kingdom constituted a “real possibility of bias”. It is a Latin expression that means “domination against prejudice”. This is one of the first principles of natural justice, which states that no one can be a judge in his own case and that every judicial authority must be impartial and neutral in making a decision. Thus, if a judge or decision-making authority is accused of bias or partiality, he or she is prohibited from trying a case. The problem of “departmental bias” also arises in a different context when the functions of judge and prosecutor are grouped together in the same department. It is not uncommon for the same department that initiates a case to also decide one, so sometimes the brotherhood and loyalty of the departments goes against the concept of a fair trial. This principle is subject to the condition that the judge be impartial and rule objectively on the basis of the evidence in the file.
Therefore, if a person, for whatever reason, cannot make an objective decision based on the evidence on file, he or she is characterized as biased. #principle of Natural Justice, #Rule Against Prejudice and the Law The foundation of impartiality is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. The erosion of public trust undermines the nobility of the legal system and leads to chaos. [14] The nature of the necessity of impartiality was established by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon (1968):[15] “Justice must be rooted in trust and trust is destroyed when the righteous go away thinking, `The judge was biased.`” [15]: 599 But these measures are not enough. The government must address biased practices in all DHS activities, including by strengthening anti-discrimination profiling rules that govern the execution of the agency`s counterterrorism mandate.