Attorney General George Brandis, who personally chose Dyson Heydon to lead the Royal Commision into Trade Union activities, said recently that Commissioner Heydon "does not have a political bone in his body". Indeed, that...
“This is a man who has no politics, who is entirely free of politics, but has given a lifetime of service.”
Dyson Heydon: royal commissioner decides futureRoyal Commissioner Dyson Heydon's father was the private secretary to Robert Menzies when he first was Prime Minister, from 1939-40.
The Australian / Elizabeth Colman, Jared Owens
31 August 2015
What you didn’t know about Dyson Heydon
Malcolm Farr / news.com.au
Q : (Loud appeal by ACTU at Allan Border Field) : Howzat?
A : (Third Umpire, observation) : Dyson Heydon was dismissed (run out, no less) for eight when he played in Sir Robert Menzies' Prime Minister's XI against South Africa in 1964.
TAR : Okay. Let's have another look at that...
Yesterday, after 10 days of deliberation, Commissioner Heydon delivered his self-assessment regarding "apprehended bias".
Surely that is a might might through which a fair-minded lay observer might drive a galaxy fleet of hyperdrive perceptors; and yet the projection-space known as Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon has judged himself reasonably unlikely to be such a projection by others.
Here's the submission about that as made by lawyer for the ACTU, Mr Newlinds :
Dyson Heydon would not be run out again - not by the other runner, not as a result of his own error, and not by the other side - while serving in the Prime Minister's XI.
He has declared himself, "Not out".
detail
A Person Looks At A Work Of Art/
someone looks at something...
LOGOS/HA HA
Apprehended bias
The test for determining whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself by reason of apprehended bias is “whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”
Johnson v Johnson(2000) 201 CLR 488 at [11], affirmed in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; applied inMichael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; distinguished in British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; see also Slavin v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 16857[2006] NSWCA 71 and Barakat v Goritsas (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 36.
Here's the submission about that as made by lawyer for the ACTU, Mr Newlinds :
May I emphasise at this point what I call the double "might" test in Ebner. We would respectfully suggest that the use of the two "mights", not only is it rather ugly grammar, it does emphasise that this is actually quite a low bar that is imposed by the High Court in relation to the test, because I don't have to persuade you that the hypothetical observer would think that you harbour a political prejudice. I only have to persuade you that the hypothetical observer, firstly, might think and, secondly, what he might think is that you might harbour a political prejudice. I think that is an important point to emphasise. The test could be cast with the use of many other words but it has obviously deliberately been cast in that sense which creates a low threshold. That is our first submission. We put it forward as a basis by itself that would justify the making of the orders we seek.
p9 of the pdf of the Royal Commission transcript of 21 August 2015
Dyson Heydon would not be run out again - not by the other runner, not as a result of his own error, and not by the other side - while serving in the Prime Minister's XI.
He has declared himself, "Not out".
Three fair-minded lay observers at the crease LM of TAR
detail
someone looks at something...
LOGOS/HA HA
