View which [she] may have of the matter
As interviewer, Thrace must may make a decision which invokes or is otherwise connected to an existing personal ‘view which [she] may have of the matter,’ and that ‘might reasonably be thought’ to provide the foundation of an irreconcilable conflict. Consequently, Thrace’s active participation in both proceedings may lead a ‘fair-minded observer’ to find that she holds ‘a frame of mind…incompatible with the…neutrality required to weigh legal, factual and policy considerations’ as demanded by the Act.
Sample Solution
As an interviewer, Thrace must make a decision which invokes or is otherwise connected to an existing personal ‘view which [she] may have of the matter’ and that might reasonably be thought to provide the foundation of an irreconcilable conflict (McGee & Northgrave., 2017). This means that Thrace’s active participation in both proceedings could lead a ‘fair-minded observer’ to find that she holds ‘a frame of mind…incompatible with the impartiality required to weigh legal, factual and policy considerations’ as demanded by the Act.
In order for courts determine whether this is case certain factors will need examined. Firstly any previous comments or actions taken by Thrace prior hearing commencing should assessed determine if biasness was present before proceeding began (McGee & Northgrave., 2017). For example if there were public statements made expressing strong opinions on one side then this could suggest pre-determined views towards parties issues being discussed.
Additionally, determining whether interests held by Thrace regarding matters dispute such financial investments businesses related case can potentially lead act unfairly when making judgements (McGee & Northgrave., 2017). Furthermore examining external influences such lobbying attempts from stakeholders also provide further insight potential biasness.
Overall, in assessing whether fair-minded observer would believe Thrace holds frame mind incompatible with neutrality required weigh legal, factual policy considerations as demanded by Act courts use tests similar outlined [1] assess pre-judgement presence thus ensuring fairness across board while respecting rights all parties involved.
