header-logo header-logo

30 October 2008
Issue: 7343 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Judiciary bias

Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62, [2008] All ER (D) 222 (Oct)

Where bias is alleged, the question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer (who is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious), having considered the relevant facts, would conclude that there existed a real possibility that the judge was biased. The question is one of law, to be answered in the light of the relevant facts, which may include a statement from the judge as to what he knew at the time; although the court is not necessarily bound to accept any such statement at face value, there can be no question of cross-examining the judge on it, and no attention will be paid to any statement by the judge as to the impact of any knowledge on him.
 

Issue: 7343 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll