This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

French CJ

22.

historic functions and processes of courts of law". In the joint judgment in Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd[1] their Honours said:

"Judicial power involves the application of the relevant law to facts as found in proceedings conducted in accordance with the judicial process." (emphasis added; footnote omitted)

There are elements of the judicial process which can be said, at least in a metaphorical way, to play a part in maintaining public confidence in the courts irrespective of their relationship to the actual outcome of the process. The appearance of impartiality is one such. In North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley[2] the joint judgment quoted with approval the observation by Gaudron J in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy[3]:

"Impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are necessary for the maintenance of public confidence in the judicial system."

The somewhat elusive criterion of "public confidence" is in some cases, such as the appearance of bias, subsumed in what a fair and reasonable observer would think. The courts nevertheless depend in a real sense upon public confidence in the judicial system to maintain their authority. The maintenance of that authority depends, inter alia, upon that element of the judicial process which requires that parties before the court be given and be seen to be given a fair hearing. It is necessary to a fair hearing that the court be attentive to the evidence presented by the parties and to the submissions which they make. The appearance of unfairness in a trial can constitute a "miscarriage of justice" within the ordinary meaning of that term[4].

The appearance of a court not attending to the evidence and arguments of the parties and control of the conduct of the proceedings is an appearance which would ordinarily suggest to a fair and reasonable observer that the judicial process is not being followed. That is not to say that every minor distraction, inattention, sign of fatigue or even momentary sleepiness constitutes a failure of the judicial function. The courts are human institutions operated by human beings and there must be a margin of appreciation for human limitations. Otherwise the judicial system would be rendered unworkable by the imposition


  1. (1999) 198 CLR 334 at 359 [56]; [1999] HCA 9.
  2. (2004) 218 CLR 146 at 162 [27]; [2004] HCA 31.
  3. (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 363 [81]; [2000] HCA 63.
  4. R v Hertrich (1982) 137 DLR (3d) 400 at 430 (Ont CA); R v Duke (1985) 22 CCC (3d) 217 at 223 (Alta CA).