When the Applicant appeared before the Justices, his solicitor submitted that the Justices should acknowledge that they were aware that in addition to the matter which they were about to try (that is to say an offence of criminal damage against a door) the Applicant was also facing six complaints of failing to answer to bail and one of being drunk in a public place, and with that knowledge, they should not continue to hear the allegation, as they would or might not be prejudiced by their knowledge from the court sheets of those outstanding charges.
Held: The test of whether there had been a fair hearing in a case of doubt ‘We conclude that the test to be applied can conveniently be expressed by slightly adapting the ‘words of Lord Widgery CJ in a test which he laid down in Reg v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Burbridge apparently only reported in The Times June 20th, 1972, but referred to by him [in a later case]: Would ‘a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in the court and’ knowing all the relevant facts have a ‘reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for’ the applicant ‘was not possible’.’
 1 WLR 119
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Burbridge 20-Jun-1972
When considering the fairness of a particular tribunal hearing a case, the test was whether ‘a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in the court and’ knowing all the relevant facts have a ‘reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for’ the . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.211434