Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T22:13:12.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BIAS AND THE INFORMED OBSERVER: A CALL FOR A RETURN TO GOUGH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku
Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku
Affiliation:
Professor of Law and Head of Brunel Law School.
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 388 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The European Court of Human Rights in Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 266 at [48].

2 [2007] UKHL 37; [2008] 1 All E.R. 315.

3 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, and Lord Mance.

4 At [80].

5 At [81].

6 Two other problems arise in constructing the informed observer. First, the observer's personality and character, and, secondly, the knowledge and understanding required before the observer is deemed to be “informed”.

7 [1993] A.C. 646 at 667–670. According to Lord Goff (at 670) it is “unnecessary, in formulating the appropriate test, to require that the court should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man, because the court in cases such as these personifies the reasonable man.”

8 The Lord Justice-Clerk in Robbie The Pict v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2002] ScotHC 333, at [16].

9 See for example, Re JRL; Ex parte C.J.L [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 C.L.R. 342 at 352; Livesey v. New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 C.L.R. 288 at 293.

10 Lord Justice-Clerk in Robbie The Pict v. Her Majesty's Advocate (above). Also Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] Q.B. 451 at 480; Bienstein v. Bienstein [2003] HCA 7 at [35–36] (HC, Australia), SACCAWU v. Irvin & Johnson, 2000 (3) SA 705 at [13] (Const. Ct., SA).

11 Dimes v. Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 H.L.C. 759; Sellar v. Highland Railway Co, 1919 SC (HL) 19; R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 119; Meerabux v. AG of Belize [2005] UKPC 12.

12 Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 266 at [47] (ECt.HR); Kyprianou v. Cyprus (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 27, [2005] ECHR 873 (ECt.HR); US v. Morgan, 313 US 409 at 421 (SC, 1941); Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada [2003] 2 SCR 259, 2003 SCC 45 at [59] (SC, Canada); President of the Republic of South Africa and others v. South African Rugby Football Union and others [1999] 7 B. Const. L.R. 725, 1999 (4) SA 147 at [40] (Const. Ct., South Africa); Jaipal v. The State (18 Feb 2005), Case CCT 12/04 at [42] (Const. Ct., South Africa).

13 Porter v. Magill [2002] 2 A.C. 357; In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No. 2) [2001] 1 W.L.R. 700; Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35; Davidson v. Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34.

14 See e.g. R. v. Webb [1994] HCA 30, (1994) 181 C.L.R. 41 (HC, Australia); Cook v. Patterson [1972] N.Z.L.R. 861 (CA, New Zealand), EH Cochrane Ltd v. Ministry of Transport [1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 146 (CA, New Zealand), Auckland Casino Ltd. v. Casino Control Authority [1995] 1 N.Z.L.R. 142 (CA, New Zealand); Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board (1976) 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716 (SC, Canada); R. v. S (RD) (1997) 151 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (SC, Canada); SACCAWU v. Irvin & Johnson [2000] 8 B. Const. LR 886, 2000 (3) SA 705 (Const. Ct., South Africa); President of the Republic of South Africa and others v. South African Rugby Football Union and others [1999] 7 B. Const. L.R. 725, 1999 (4) SA. 147 (Const. Ct., South Africa).

15 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

16 Lord Hewart C.J. in R. v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 K.B. 256 at 259. See also Millar v Dickson [2002] SC 30 at [63] (PC).

17 See for example, Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak 343 US 451 at 476 (SC, 1952); In re United States 666 F.2d. 690 at 694 (1st Cir. 1981); Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48; Ebner v. Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] FCA 110, [2000] HCA 63 (HC, Australia); Erris Promotions v. Inland Revenue [2003] NZCA 163 at [24] (CA, New Zealand).

18 See e.g. Delcourt v. Belgium (1970) 1 E.H.R.R. 355 at [31]; De Cubber v. Belgium (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 236 at [26]; Kyprianou v. Cyprus (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 27, [2005] ECHR 873.

19 Liteky v. US, 127 L. Ed.2d. 474 at 486, per Scalia J. (SC, 1994). See also the ECt.HR in Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 266 at para. 48 (referring to De Cubber v. Belgium).

20 Offutt v. United States 99 L. Ed. 11 at 16 (SC, 1954).

21 R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [1999] 1 All E.R. 577, 592.

22 “Public perception of the possibility of unconscious bias is the key.” [2003] UKHL 35 at [14].

23 The Lord Justice-Clerk in Robbie The Pict v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2002] ScotHC 333, [2003] S.C.C.R. 99 at [24].

24 See the Supreme Court of Canada in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, 2003 SCC 45 at [66].

25 [2002] ScotCS 256 at [33] (affd. [2004] UKHL 34).

26 [1969] 1 Q.B. 577 at 599.

27 127 L.Ed.2d. 474 at 497.

28 See Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] Q.B. 451 at 480; Davidson v. Scottish Ministers [2002] ScotCS 256 at [16].

29 Gleeson C.J., Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [12].

30 Stevens J. in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 US 847 at 863; Livesey v. New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 C.L.R. 288 at 293.

31 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [42].

32 “Such a person is not a lawyer” – Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [53].

33 Described as a “lay observer” by Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ. in Vakauta v. Kelly [1989] HCA 44.

34 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [48].

35 See the general discussion and exhaustive list by Kirby J. of the High Court of Australia in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48.

36 Rehnquist C.J. in Microsoft Corp v. US, 147 L. Ed. 2d. at 1049.

37 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [53].

38 Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [13].

39 Toohey J. in Vakauta v. Kelly [1989] HCA 44, at para 10 of his judgment.

40 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [53].

41 Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Bolkiah & Ors v. The State of Brunei Darussalam & Anor (Brunei Darussalam) [2007] UKPC 62, at [16].

42 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [49].

43 Ibid.

44 Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [13].

45 In re Mason, 916 F.2d. 384 at 386 (7th Cir. 1990).

46 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [57].

47 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [53].

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [12]; Rehnquist C.J. in Microsoft Corp v. US, 147 L. Ed. 2d. at 1049; SACCAWU v. Irvin & Johnson 2000 (3) SA 705 at [15]; President of the Republic of South Africa and others v. South African Rugby Football Union and Others, 1999 (4) SA 147 at [45].

51 Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd v. Lannon, above; Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board [1978] 1 SCR 369 at 394; R. v. S (RD) [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at 505, 507.

52 Jaipal v. State [2004] ZASCA 45 at [12] (Supreme Court of Appeals, South Africa).

53 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [52].

54 Johnson v. Johnson, above.

55 Lord Mance in Abdroikov, at [81].

56 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [14].

57 Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [53].

58 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [53]; De Grandpré J. of the Supreme Court of Canada (dissenting) in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at 395 (approved in Valente v. The Queen [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673, and Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, 2003 SCC 45).

59 Lord Woolf C.J. in Taylor v. Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90 at [61].

60 Lord Steyn in Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35 at [22].

61 See Lord Steyn in Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd, at [14]; Lord Mance in Abdroikov, at [81].

62 See Lord Bingham in Abdroikov at [1]; Baroness Hale at [45].

63 See Lord Mance in Abdroikov at [80].

64 See Gleeson C.J., Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [11]; See also Livesey v. New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 C.L.R. 288 at 293–294; Ebner v. Official Trustee [2000] HCA 63 at [6]; Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v. Creasy [2002] HCA 51 at [68]; R. v. Mr Justice R.S. Watson, a Judge of the Family Court of Australia, Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 9 A.L.R. 551 at 564–565; Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 at [28]; Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [11]; Bienstein v. Bienstein [2003] HCA 7 at [31]; Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 266 at [48]; Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., Stevens J. (at 860); Rehnquist C.J. (dissenting) (at 871); the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Erris Promotions & Anor v. Inland Revenue ([2003] NZCA 163 at [32]); the Supreme Court of Ireland in Orange Ltd v. Director of Telecoms (No. 2) [2004] 4 I.R. 159 at 186.

65 Lord Steyn in Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd at [14].

66 R. v. Webb, above; Johnson v. Johnson, at [11–13]; SACCAWU v. Irvin & Johnson 2000 (3) SA 705, para 15, referring to President of the Republic of South Africa and others v. South African Rugby Football Union and Others, 1999 (4) SA 147, para. 45. This was described by the Court in State v. Basson as “the reasonable apprehension of the reasonable person” (2004), CCT 30/03, para. 53.

67 Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [13].

68 See for example, Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA at [16] and [18].

69 Idoport Pty Limited & Anor v. National Australia Bank Limited & 8 Ors [2004] NSWSC 270 at [18] (SC, NSW).

70 The Lord Justice-General in Transco Plc v. HM Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC1 at [22]; Lord Hope of Craighead said in Davidson v. Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34 at [47].

71 Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 266, 279, at [48]; Kyprianou v. Cyprus (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 27, [2005] ECHR 873 at [118].

72 Lord Bingham in Abdroikov at [16].

73 [2008] EWCA Crim 531 – Lord Philips of Worth Matravers C.J., Sir Igor Judge P, and Silber J.

74 Douglas Hogg, Early Day Motion 160 (8 November 2007), “That this House notes the decision of the House of Lords in the cases of R. v Abdroikov, R. v Green and R. v Williamson; and believes that the law should be amended so as to exclude police officers and prosecutors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service from serving on a jury.”

75 [2008] EWCA Crim 531 at [24].

76 At [25] and [26].

77 At [131].

78 Ibid.

79 At [132].

80 At [80].

81 [1993] A.C. 646 at 667–670.

82 [1967] 2 Q.B. 167.

83 [1969] 1 Q.B. 577.

84 [1993] A.C. 646, at 667.

85 At 667–668.

86 At 670.

87 For examples of recent relevant decisions of the higher courts, see R. v. Wilson [2008] EWCA Crim 134; R. v. S [2008] EWCA Crim 138; R. v. Pintori [2007] EWCA Crim 1700; Gillies v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, [2006] UKHL 2, 2006 S.C. 71 (H.L.); R. v. Karl Eldin, Bakri Siraj-Eldin [2006] EWCA Crim 1904; Helow v. Advocate General, 2007 S.C. 303; R. v. Marquez-Arnedo (Nicholas) [2006] EWCA Crim 1988; R. v. Campbell [2005] EWCA Crim 248; Man O'War Station Ltd v. Auckland City Council (No.1) [2002] UKPC 28.

88 As Lord Steyn for the Privy Council pointed out in Man O'War Station Ltd v. Auckland City Council (No.1) [2002] UKPC 28 at [10] the adjusted test in Porter v. Magill emphasises the perspective of the fair-minded observer rather than the view of the court.

89 Kirby J. in Johnson v. Johnson [2000] HCA 48 at [48].

90 [2008] NICA 11 at [26] – per Girvan L.J.

91 Georgiou v. Enfield London Borough Council [2004] EWHC 779 (Admin) at [31].

92 [2007] EWHC 3166 (Admin).

93 Scott Baker L.J. in R. v. K [2007] EWCA Crim 1620, at [24].

94 At [80]–[81].

95 [2001] 1 W.L.R. 700.

96 [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 A.C. 357.

97 At [81].

98 [2008] NICA 11.

99 At [20].

100 At [21].

101 [2007] NICA 32, at [8].

102 [2002] EWCA Civ 1104 at [38].

103 [2004] EWCA Civ 1307.

104 At [44].

105 Ibid.

106 At [45].

107 [2007] NIQB 25 at [19].

108 [2007] UKPC 62 at [21].

109 [2007] EWCA Civ 1149 at [26].

110 Compare Laws L.J. in Sengupta & Anor v. Holmes & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1104 at [38].

111 [2007] HC.J.AC 63; 2007 SLT 1153 at [63].

112 Per Lord Nimmo Smith in Helow v. Advocate General [2007] SC 303 at [35].

113 Lord Nimmo Smith, ibid.

114 Lord Nimmo Smith in Robbie the Pict v. Wylie [2007] HCJAC 10 at [21].

115 [2007] EWHC 3166 (Admin) at [76].

116 [1993] A.C. 646.

117 See for example Sedley J. in R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd [1996] 3 All E.R. 304 at 316.

118 [2006] UKHL 2 at [39].

119 [2008] NICA 11 at [19].

120 [1993] A.C. 646.

121 [1994] 4 All E.R. 139.

122 At 162.

123 [1994] HCA 30; (1994) 181 C.L.R. 41.

124 At [9].

125 Ibid.

126 At [10].

127 See generally, J.A.G. Griffith, The Politics of the Judiciary, 5th edn. (London 1997). Compare S. Atrill, “Who is the ‘Fair-Minded and Informed Observer’? Bias after Magill”, [2003] C.L.J. 279 at 281, suggesting that the difficulties faced by the courts in these cases “may reflect a concern that the judiciary, belonging to a relatively homogeneous social group, is not best placed to develop an accurate picture of a hypothetical person.”

128 [2008] NICA 11 at [22].

129 See S. Atrill, “Who is the ‘Fair-Minded and Informed Observer’?” [2003] C.L.J. 279.

130 [2006] EWCA Civ 6 at [20]. Applied in Howell v. Lees Millais [2007] EWCA Civ 720.

131 See for example, Re Purcell's application [2008] NICA 11, at [16]; R. (On the Application of Abdi) v. Lambeth LBC [2007] EWHC 1565 (Admin) at [34].

132 [1993] A.C. 646 at 670.

133 Indeed, Lord Steyn said in Man O'War Station Ltd v. Auckland City Council (No.1) [2002] UKPC 28 at [10] that “In any event, the distinction [between the court and the lay observer] is a fine one, notably since even on the Gough test the court undoubtedly had to take account of public perception and confidence.”

134 [2007] EWCA Crim 2999 at [33].

135 [2008] NICA 11 at [26].