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
27 February 2013

Invitation: Justice Zak Yacoob delivers Claude Leon Human Rights Lecture

 Invitation – All Welcome

The Dean of Law, Professor P.J. Schwikkard, takes pleasure in inviting you to the annual Claude Leon Constitutional Governance lecture to be given by:

Retired Constitutional Court Justice, the Hon. Mr Justice Yacoob

“Freedom of expression versus Democracy?”

Date: Thursday 14 March 2013

Time: 18:00

Venue: Lecture Theatre 1, Kramer Building, Middle Campus, UCT

RSVP: Rene on tel. 021 650 3072 or via e-mail Rene.Francke@uct.ac.za

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