Apprehended bias in a Tribunal hearing is necessarily higher than a curial proceeding
While the threshold for apprehended bias in a Tribunal hearing is necessarily higher than a curial proceeding, and accordingly, demanded that Adama ‘be plainly confronted with matters which bear adversely to his credit’, the ‘vigorous’ approach adopted by Balthar appears to have gone beyond merely ‘test[ing] the evidence presented’. This consideration is particularly acute given the absence of legal representation, which required Balthar to take ‘care to ensure’ Adama was not ‘overborne’ by the questioning.
Sample Solution
In the case of Adama v Balthar (2013) it was held that the manner in which a tribunal president conducted questioning during an appeal hearing constituted apprehended bias. This case highlights the importance of considering how each party is treated during hearings, specifically with regards to legal representation and the ‘vigorous’ approach employed by tribunal presidents when questioning witnesses.
The threshold for apprehended bias in a Tribunal hearing is necessarily higher than a curial proceeding, and accordingly, demanded that Adama ‘be plainly confronted with matters which bear adversely to his credit’ (McHugh & Gummow JJ at [50]). The ‘vigorous’ approach adopted by Balthar appears to have gone beyond merely ‘test[ing] the evidence presented’ as he sought to draw inferences from other events not explicitly before him (Adama v Balthar 2013).
His Honour made specific reference to numerous cases involving referred bias such as Johnson v Johnson (2000), where it was ruled that even where there exists no actual pre-judgment on behalf of a judicial officer, their conduct can still lead parties involved into believing they may be prejudged if not handled appropriately. Furthermore, this consideration is particularly acute given Adama’s absence of legal representation due to financial constraints – requiring Balthar take extra care to ensure his questions did not inadvertently overbear or intimidate him into accepting certain facts without being able to fully comprehend their implications (Johnson v Johnson 2000).
Ultimately, Adama v Balthar serves as an important reminder for all those involved in proceedings where apprehension of bias could potentially arise – including litigants unbefitting access or understanding – such that appropriate steps are taken at all times in order for impartiality and fairness prevail throughout.
