Tweet
I found this apparently excellent 2019 article on Judicial bias.............
https://enyolaw.com/news/without-pre...nfair-conduct/
There are a number of later articles that seem to pick up the specific definitions of Actual and Apparent Bias. I was impressed with the article generally but have issue with the authors basic definitions of Judicial Bias.
I am much happier with AI.............
'Judicial bias can be either actual or apparent. Actual bias refers to a judge's state of mind where they have a pre-determined view of the case or a vested interest in its outcome. Apparent bias, on the other hand, involves the appearance of bias, where a fair-minded observer might reasonably suspect bias even if the judge is not actually biased'
I try to see matters simplistically to minimise confusion, ambiguity and noise.
Apparent Bias............
Bias that has not occurred and is therefore not proven but circumstantially has potential. This should be raised before a hearing to give the judge a reasonable opportunity to recuse themselves.
Actual Bias.............
A Bias event that has occurred and can be proven. Most Likely a hearing event but quite possibly pre-hearing. I suggest that proven pre-hearing Actual Bias should be treated as Apparent Bias to give the Judge concerned a reasonable opportunity to recuse themselves but as the bias has taken place there should be consequences for the Judge. There really is no place for Judicial bias even if it is dealt with before judgment.
I have a particular issue to deal with at the moment and would appreciate some assurance on the basic definition of Judicial Bias.
https://enyolaw.com/news/without-pre...nfair-conduct/
There are a number of later articles that seem to pick up the specific definitions of Actual and Apparent Bias. I was impressed with the article generally but have issue with the authors basic definitions of Judicial Bias.
I am much happier with AI.............
'Judicial bias can be either actual or apparent. Actual bias refers to a judge's state of mind where they have a pre-determined view of the case or a vested interest in its outcome. Apparent bias, on the other hand, involves the appearance of bias, where a fair-minded observer might reasonably suspect bias even if the judge is not actually biased'
I try to see matters simplistically to minimise confusion, ambiguity and noise.
Apparent Bias............
Bias that has not occurred and is therefore not proven but circumstantially has potential. This should be raised before a hearing to give the judge a reasonable opportunity to recuse themselves.
Actual Bias.............
A Bias event that has occurred and can be proven. Most Likely a hearing event but quite possibly pre-hearing. I suggest that proven pre-hearing Actual Bias should be treated as Apparent Bias to give the Judge concerned a reasonable opportunity to recuse themselves but as the bias has taken place there should be consequences for the Judge. There really is no place for Judicial bias even if it is dealt with before judgment.
I have a particular issue to deal with at the moment and would appreciate some assurance on the basic definition of Judicial Bias.