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
1 March 2012

Liberalism in general and its different South African shades has only been consistent on one and only one thing, political hypocrisy. Otherwise how does explain the fact that the DA has come out with guns blazing against e-tolling in Gauteng (which the SACP incidentally also has problems with) whilst at the same time imposing its own toll gates on Chapman`s peak in Cape Town. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the media completely ignored the SACP Central Committee statement over the weekend when it pointed this out, since, for all intents and purposes, mainstream and commercial media in South Africa, with few exceptions, has become the mouthpiece of especially post 1994 (white) liberalism. – Blade Nzimande

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