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
7 February 2016

All the court papers in EFF & DA Nkandla application to the Con Court

Here are the papers submitted to the Constitutional Court in the two cases relating to the implementation of the Public Protector’s Nkandla Report.

DA case – Public Protector’s papers: DA 4th Resp Heads

DA case – Minister of Police’s Papers: DA 3rd Resp Heads

DA case – President Zuma’s papers: DA 2nd Resp Heads

DA case – Speaker’s papers: DA 1st Resp Heads

DA case – DA’s papers:DA App Heads

EFF case – Public Protector’s papers: EFF 3rd Resp Heads

EFF case – President Zuma’s papers: EFF 2nd Resp Heads

EFF case – Speaker’s papers: EFF 1st Resp Heads

EFF case – EFF’s papersEFF App Heads

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