References: [1999] ZACC 9, [1999] 4 SA 147
Links: SAFLii
Constitutional Court of South Africa – The court considered an allegation of bias in the judge, it being said that they should have recused themselves: ‘The question is whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would on the correct facts reasonably apprehend that the judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case, that is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submissions of counsel. The reasonableness of the apprehension must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judges to administer justice without fear or favour; and their ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training ad experience. It must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predispositions. They must take into account the fact that they have a duty to sit in any case in which they are not obliged to recuse themselves. At the same time it must never be forgotten that an impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial and a judicial officer should not hesitate to recuse herself or himself if there are reasonable grounds on the part of a litigant for apprehending that the judicial officer, for whatever reasons, was not or will not be impartial.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – O’Neill -v- Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 36, [2013] 2 Cr App R 34, [2013] HRLR 25, [2013] 1 WLR 1992, 2013 SCL 678, 2013 SLT 888, 2013 GWD 21-410, [2013] WLR(D) 231, 2013 SCCR 401, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0149, SC Summary, SC)
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .