Johnson v Johnson; 7 Sep 2000

References: (2000) 201 CLR 488, [2000] 74 ALJR 1380, [2000] 174 ALR 655, [2000] HCA 48
Links: Austlii
Coram: Kirby J
(High Court of Australia) When looking to test whether a member of the public would perceive bias in a court, it is unnecessary to delve into the characteristics to be attributed to the fair-minded and informed observer. One is entitled to conclude that such an observer will adopt a balanced approach. ‘A reasonable member of the public is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lawal -v- Northern Spirit Limited HL (House of Lords, Gazette 17-Jul-03, Bailii, [2003] UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856, [2004] 1 All ER 187)
    Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
    Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
  • Cited – PD, Regina (on the Application of) -v- West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2469 (Admin), Times 31-Oct-03, Gazette 02-Jan-04)
    The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
    Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
  • Cited – Gillies -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL (Bailii, [2006] UKHL 2, Times 30-Jan-06, [2006] 1 WLR 1781, 2006 SC (HL) 71)
    The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
  • Cited – Helow -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 62, HL, Times, [2008] 1 WLR 2416, 2008 SCLR 830, (2008) 152(41) SJLB 29, [2009] 2 All ER 1031, 2009 SC (HL) 1, 2008 GWD 35-520, 2008 SLT 967)
    The appellant, a Palestinian, challenged the involvement of Lady Cosgrove as a judge in her case, saying that Lady Cosgrove’s involvement as a jew in pro-Jewish lobby organisations meant that there was an appearance of bias. The applicant had sought . .