Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rule Against Bias - Relationship with a party

  • 02-10-2012 3:26pm
    #1
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭


    Right so Admin law is proving to be way more interesting that I imagined it could be! Something struck me today as odd and although my lecturer gave me an excellent answer (which I won't share as I didn't ask if I could) I wondered if you folks might weigh in. Any good articles etc are also very welcome.

    The line of Judicial thinking we've been taken down is:

    R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarty [1924] 1 KB 256 - ... "[It] is of fundamental importance importance that justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

    and Denham J decision in Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd. and Others v Ireland

    So basically we have this notion that it's very important that bias is not only not present it's not seen to be there by objective standards. I don't really have an issue with that concept I just spell it out in case my understanding is flawed at this stage.

    So then when you look at a case like O'Reilly v Cassidy (No. 2) [1995] 1 IRLM 311 I find it hard to reconcile the reasonable man would not have an issue that a Judge can be related to one of the counsel involved and that no be grounds for the appearance of bias. One opinion put forward was that for the Judges oath to mean anything the 'reasonable man' would take it that the Judge was sticking to that even when directly related to counsel in a case.

    Thoughts?


Advertisement