Quote of the week

Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.

L'Heureux-Dube and McLachlin JJ
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288
18 September 2009

The enormity of what the DA seeks to achieve in this application, particularly the injustice and unfairness to Mr Zuma, should not be overlooked. He has been investigated with all his documents, bank accounts and private conduct being exposed to scrutiny since 2001, a well-considered NPA decision not to prosecute him made in 2003, a decision to prosecute him taken in 2005 which came to naught when the case was struck from the roll when the Prosecution in August 2006 unsuccessfully sought a postponement, a December 2007 decision to prosecute him followed by a March 2009 decision not to continue with such prosecution in respect of essentially the same core charges and the same core evidence. The Applicant now seeks to review the 2009 decision so that another decision must be taken to prosecute Mr Zuma in 2010 and some future date. – Michael Hulley, in  his replying affidavit to the DA review application

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest