header-logo header-logo

09 September 2016
Issue: 7713 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Judicial bias and preconceptions

The President of the Supreme Court once found himself justifying the inconsistencies in an elderly man’s unconvincing evidence because his mannerisms reminded him of his recently deceased father.

Lord Neuberger recalled the experience while giving a speech on judicial ethics, at the recent Singapore Panel on Judicial Ethics and Dilemmas on the Bench. He said all human beings have preconceived ideas and notions, and the “important thing is that judges are as aware as they can be of any biases or prejudices they suffer from, and that they acknowledge and take into account those biases and prejudices when evaluating witnesses and their evidence.”

He explained that the role of the common law judge is that of umpire in a contest. The introduction of the Jackson reforms, which impose case management duties on the judge, made the judge also a manager but did not impinge on their role of umpire.

Lord Neuberger commented on the extent to which judges can ask questions and raise issues during a trial, which he described as a “thorny issue”. He said it is a “fact-sensitive and discretionary matter”—if the judge asks too many questions there is a danger they will become biased “because he or she has been thinking about the case through the prism of one party’s case”.

Issue: 7713 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll