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
21 November 2013

Is this now a criminal offence?

Minister of state security Siyabonga Cwele today warned that the publication of pictures of Nkandla is unlawful. This is rubbish. There is absolutely nothing in the (unconstitutional) National Key Points Act that prohibits the publication of pictures of a building declared a National Key Point. Otherwise the publication of all pictures of the SABC building would also be unlawful. So here it is again.

zumaville1eb

And another version.

1403004_10151659537721525_1889542902_o

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