R.v.Thompson
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Rowe, P. |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1990 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 1990 CA 10 |
| Docket Number | Resident Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1989 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
| Date | 26 February 1990 |
Court of Appeal
Rowe, P., Wright and Morgan, JJ.A.
Resident Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1989
Maurice Saunders for appellant
Mrs. Lorna Errar-Gayle for crown
Natural justice - Bias — Test for determining bias
Natural Justice - Test fro determining bias — Claim that the Resident Magistrate was in breach of the principles of natural justice as he failed to apply the proper test for bias — He adjudicated over two separate trails based on the same facts and refused to disqualify himself — Appeal dismissed — No evidence that the Resident Magistrate who is a trained lawyer showed bias, whether conscious or unconscious, which would have caused the appellant not to obtain a fair trial.
Facts: Claim that the Resident Magistrate was in breach of the principles of natural justice as he failed to apply the proper test for bias — He adjudicated over two separate trials based on the same facts and refused to disqualify himself
Held: Appeal dismissed — No evidence that the Resident magistrate who is a trained lawyer showed bias, whether conscious or unconscious, which would have caused the appellant not to obtain a fair trial.
Irene Nicholson was severely injured on the night of August 5th, 1986. Two men, Everton Christie and the appellant were singularly charged for wounding Nicholson. Both informations were sworn to on August 19th, 1986. Christie came on for trial on January 20th, 1987. Nicholson was in the process of giving evidence-in-chief in support of the prosecution's case, when the prosecutor decided “to offer no further evidence” and Christie was dismissed. The appellant was arrested in July 1987 in respect of the information sworn to on August 19th, 1986 and he was eventually convicted on June 2nd, 1988 and given twelve month sentence suspended for two years. Trial of the appellant commenced on April 26th, 1988 and was continued on May 19th, 1988. On that day the Crown called two witnesses then closed its case. A no-case submission on behalf of the appellant was rejected. Then the appellant gave sworn evidence, and called two defense witnesses.
Again the trial was adjourned and the new trial date of June 2nd, 1988 was fixed. The appellant was remanded in custody. When the trial resumed on June 2nd, counsel for the appellant applied to the court to disqualify itself on the basis that the same resident magistrate who heard the evidence in Everton Christie's case was now trying the appellant and consequently he was not fit or qualified to act as a judge of fact and of law in the appellant's case. The resident magistrate refused to disqualify himself and went on to convict the appellant. In his findings of fact he recorded:
“Court did not accept breached rules of natural justice. Recalled prosecution offering no further evidence in case against Christie before completion of her examination in-chief.”
Mr. Saunders' first ground of appeal was well summarised in the second paragraph of Supplementary Ground 1, when he complained that:
“The learned resident magistrate was in breach of the principles of natural justice particularly, the ruse against bias, and that he failed to apply the proper test of bias, to wit, whether there was an appearance of bias and not whether there was actual bias so that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done.”
In support of this ground he argued that the resident magistrate held two separate trials based on the same facts and in so doing there was an appearance of bias. The test of bias has steadily developed since the King v. Sussex Justices ex pane McCarthy [1924] 1 K.B. 256. In Regina v. Altrincham Justices ex pane Pennington [1975] 1 Q.B. 549 Lord Widgery, C.J., stated the test of bias in this way:
“When an application is made to set aside a decision on the ground of bias, it is of course not necessary to prove that the judicial officer in question was biased. It is enough to show that there is a real likelihood of bias, or at all events that a reasonable person advised of the circumstances might reasonably suspect that the judicial officer was incapable of producing the impartiality and detachment [which the judicial function requires]”
Other equally illuminating statements of the law on bias can be found in the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon [1968] 3 All E.R 304 at 310 where he said:
“In considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justices himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact, favour one side at the expense of the other. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial