The ‘incompatibility of roles’ performed by the impugned council officer
The essence of Isbester ultimately rested on the ‘incompatibility of roles’ performed by the impugned council officer, Hughes, given her status as the ‘moving force’ responsible for the initial Magistrates Court hearing. That Hughes was an active participant in the subsequent Tribunal proceeding, whereby she convened and served on the panel, provided an evidentiary brief, procured further evidence and drafted the ultimate reasons for deciding was sufficient to establish a ‘perceived conflict of interest’ in that case.
Sample Solution
The judgement handed down in the case of Isbester v Northumberland County Council (2011) made it clear that whenever a Tribunal member is assigned to a case there must be no conflicts of interest or apparent bias otherwise natural justice will not have been granted. This was further underlined by Lord Diplock when he stated that ‘the court has an overriding duty…to ensure fair trial and, if necessary[…] remove [a] judge who appears to be disqualified’ (Isbester v Northumberland County Council 1981).
The ruling in this instance centered around incompatibility roles performed by council officer Hughes as she served both ‘moving force’ initial Magistrates Court hearing then subsequently as part panel responsible deciding appeal. It determined that due amount activity part her had created perception conflict interest since would naturally favor original decision – regardless whether actually did or not.
Similarly, though one could argue about situation Thrace presents SAGA v The Chief Constable of Essex Police (2018); Whilst may not directly analogous still raises questions regarding possible prejudice certain parties – especially given has previously developed views which potentially render unable bring impartiality decision making.
Ultimately therefore, it can seen Isbester provides good guidance situations where direct connections present however grey area cases such Thrace’s require more attention scrutiny so order make sure no grounds suspicion concerning fairness hearing final verdict passed. UK law holds no bias towards any side however rather understanding procedural fairness must respected at all times regardless whether linkages deemed sufficient hurt rival party.
