100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Administrative Law - Bias, Predetermination and Article 6 Summary $10.66   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Administrative Law

Summary

Administrative Law - Bias, Predetermination and Article 6 Summary
 4 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Administrative Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on the topic of bias, predetermination and the application of Article 6 ECHR in Administrative Law. This document covers automatic disqualification (Pinochet case), Porter v Magill and applications in the local planning authority and housing contexts.

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 6, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • administrative law
  • bias
  • predetermination
  • article 6 echr
  • pinochet
  • fair trial
  • alconbury
  • curative principle

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Administrative Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

Bias/Predetermination

Two-stage Approach:
1. Automatic Disqualification
Financial, personal
Pinochet
2. Porter v Magill

1. Automatic Disqualification:
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
(No.2)
The applicant, a former head of Chile was arrested while on a visit to London
following warrants for his arrest alleging various crimes against humanity.
Amnesty International, who had campaigned against the applicant, obtained
leave to intervene in the appeal.
It was discovered that one of the judges who heard the appeal, although not a
member of AI, was an unpaid director and chairman of a charity which was
wholly controlled by AI.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson –
It was not alleged that the judge was biased, only that “there was a
real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that [he] might
be biased.”
The case appeared to fit the category of bias cases in which a judge
had a “relevant interest in the subject matter”.
In such a case the judge is “disqualified without any
investigation into whether there was a likelihood or
suspicion of bias. The mere fact of his interest is sufficient to
disqualify him unless he has made sufficient disclosure.”
The list of historically accepted types of interest is arguably not
exhaustive and there was “no good reason in principle for so limiting
automatic disqualification.”
It was enough that the judge was closely associated with AI.
Directed that case be reheard before fresh committee of HL.
Seems to be a bigger focus on the appearance of bias rather than actual justice.
Not just financial bias – “favour with the cause”.
Personal – how far do we look back? What kinds of interests count?
Slippery concept – stretching what we mean by “interest”.
High profile case – difficult context
“Hard cases make bad law”  too focused on appearance of impartiality.
Previous case of Gough – had to be a “real danger of bias”.
Not really on these facts, forced to use automatic disqualification.
Decided before Porter v Magill – would it be decided differently today?
Seems to go against the de minimis standard set in Locabail –
Parties go digging, more litigation.
Ensures that there is no drain on resources – if any tenuous link allowed,
people may keep digging if they lose.
Automatic disqualification says that idea that judges should put aside their bias when
they sit doesn’t exist – increases judicial transparency.
2. Porter v Magill:
The Conservative majority of Westminster Council adopted a policy to sell council
houses in parts of the City where it was believed that homeowners were more likely
to vote Conservative – “the homes for vote scandal”.
Issue = could the resulting investigation’s decision be quashed where an initial press
conference appeared to be biased?

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.66. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

60904 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.66
  • (0)
  Add to cart