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
30 May 2007

Male prostitute now claim info on Juan Uys

A reader alerts me to the fact that the SA male prostitute site now claims that information will shortly appear about the “gay activist” Juan Uys. This move comes shortly after many people – including myself – began to argue that this “male prostitute” was none other than serial trickster Juan Uys/Neil Watson.

It seems pretty obvious that if the male prostitute was not Juan Uys, he would have been happy for others to think that he was. By claiming that Juan Uys will also be one of his “victims”, he is really trying to claim that he is not Juan Uys. Which suggests very strongly that he is but that he wants us to think different.

2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest