Locabail v Bayfield [2000]

Court of Appeal reviewed
principles in this area.
1. Where alleged there is
real danger or possibility of bias on part of judicial decision-maker, danger
eliminated if it is shown judge was unaware of matter relied upon.
2. When objection is made,
will be as wrong for judge to yield to frivolous objection as it will be to
ignore objection of substance.
3. In considering whether
real danger of bias, following cannot form sound basis of objection:
– Religion              
– Gender                
– Ethnic / national origin    
– Means                
– Age                      
– Class                   
– Sexual orientation            
4. Nor, ordinarily, can:
– Social / educational /
employment background
– Previous political
– Membership of social /
charitable / sporting bodies.
– Previous judicial decisions
– Extra-judicial utterances.
5. May arise from:
– Personal friendship /
animosity between judge and member of public involved in case.
– If judge has expressed
views in such extreme and unbalanced terms that they cast doubt on his objectivity.
6. Where, following
appropriate disclosure by judge, party raises no objection to judge hearing
case, they cannot subsequently complain that matter gives rise to real danger
of bias.