‘the words or actions’ of a decision-maker appear to give the ‘impression
Where ‘the words or actions’ of a decision-maker appear to give the ‘impression’ that they have ‘enter[ed] the area’ to ‘denigrate’ a witness or ‘oppose’ the view of a witness, ‘the appearance of impartial justice could be compromised’. That Balthar ‘cut across’ Adama’s responses, and described his attempts to defend himself against the interim finding as ‘bureaucratic claptrap’, suggests that Balthar’s language and conduct may have risen to denigration or opposition to Adama’s views. Such a position is further affirmed by the captured audio, which indicates Balthar had predetermined Adama’s motivation and disposition when he stated ‘[t]hey’ll take every opportunity to drag things out’.
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 language and conduct by those presiding over proceedings.
Where ‘the words or actions’ of a decision-maker appear to give the ‘impression’ that they have ‘enter[ed] the area’ to ‘denigrate’ a witness or ‘oppose’ the view of a witness, ‘the appearance of impartial justice could be compromised’ (McHugh & Gummow JJ at [50]). That Balthar had indeed crossed this line was made clear by his continuous interruption and rebuttal of Adama\’s responses, as well as his dismissal of Adama’s attempts to defend himself against an interim finding as “bureaucratic claptrap.” (Adama v Balthar 2013). This position was further reinforced when audio recordings from within the hearing indicated that Balthar had predetermined Adama’s motivation behind various decisions he had taken prior to coming before him – asserting that “they’ll take every opportunity to drag things out” (Adama v Balthar 2013).
These considerations suggest that although due process may have been followed throughout Adamas’ hearing in terms of admissible evidence being presented, any advantage provided through legal representation may have been undermined by an approach designed more to discredit than judge – thus infringing upon natural justice.(Johnson v Johnson 2000). As such, it becomes apparent why McHugh & Gummow J held unanimously in favour on behalf of appellant.
