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
22 May 2009

Medical miracles (I)

It has now been 80 days since Schabir Shaik was released from prison on medical parole in order to “die a quiet and dignified death”. Shaik, however, is still very much alive. Is this a medical miracle in the making?

From now on, I will remind readers every 30 days that Shaik is still alive.

Every 30 days that Shaik remains alive provides more proof that the medical parole board released Shaik unlawfully and that the government lied about his condition. With the passing of every month, the scandal of his release grows bigger. We should not forget this.

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