Case: Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 ; (2001) 179 ALR 425
Outcome: followed
In Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28 ; (2001) 179 ALR 425 ('Re RRT; Ex parte H') Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ said, at [27]-[34], in respect of the test for apprehended bias and its application in administrative proceedings where credibility was in issue: '27 The test for apprehended bias in relation to curial proceedings is whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided. That formulation owes much to the fact that court proceedings are held in public. There is some incongruity in formulating a test in terms of "a fair-minded lay observer" when, as is the case with the tribunal, proceedings are held in private. 28 Perhaps it would be better, in the case of administrative proceedings held in private, to formulate the test for apprehended bias by reference to a hypothetical fair-minded lay person who is properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct which is said to give rise to an apprehension of bias. Whether or not that be the appropriate formulation, there is, in our view, no reason to depart from the objective test of possibility, as distinct from probability, as to what will be done or what might have been done. To do otherwise, would be to risk confusion of apprehended bias with actual bias by requiring substantially the same proof. 29 Though the test in administrative proceedings, as in curial proceedings, is, in our view, one of objective possibility, the non-curial nature of the body or tribunal in question and the different character of the proceedings must, as already indicated, be taken into account. In the present case, a significant difference between curial proceedings and the proceedings of the tribunal is that the former are adversarial and the parties are usually legally represented, whereas the latter are inquisitorial in nature and the parties are not represented. 30 Where, as in the present case, credibility is in issue, the person conducting inquisitorial proceedings will necessarily have to test the evidence presented - often vigorously. Moreover, the need to ensure that the person who will be affected by the decision is accorded procedural fairness will often require that he or she be plainly confronted with matters which bear adversely on his or her credit or which bring his or her account into question. Similar questions by a judge in curial proceedings in which the parties are legally represented may more readily give rise to an apprehension of bias than in the case of inquisitorial proceedings. 31 Where, however, parties are not legally represented in inquisitorial proceedings, care must be taken to ensure that vigorous testing of the evidence and frank exposure of its weaknesses do not result in the person whose evidence is in question being overborne or intimidated. If that should happen, a fair-minded lay observer or a properly informed lay person might readily infer that there is no evidence that the witness can give which can change the decision-maker's view. 32 In the present case, a fair-minded lay observer or a properly informed lay person, in our view, might well infer, from the constant interruptions of the male prosecutor's evidence and the constant challenges to his truthfulness and to the plausibility of his account of events, that there was nothing he could say or do to change the tribunal's preconceived view that he had fabricated his account of the events upon which he based his application for a protection visa. In other words, a fair-minded lay observer or a properly informed lay person might well apprehend bias by the tribunal against the male prosecutor. And because the female prosecutor's application stood or fell with his, a fair-minded lay observer or a properly informed lay person might, in our view, form the same view in her case.' (Footnotes omitted) 17 In Re RRT; Ex parte H the High Court held that prohibition should issue to prevent further action on the decision of the Tribunal. In doing so it opined that a properly informed hypothetical fair-minded lay person might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the question of satisfaction in respect of the criterion posited by s 36(2) of the Act when taken with the definition of refugee in the Convention. 18 Having formed the view that the prosecutors had made good their claim of apprehended bias, the High Court addressed whether Constitutional writ relief should be granted, in the exercise of the relevant discretion to do so. Notwithstanding a finding that the Tribunal decision was not affected by actual bias, the Court nevertheless decided that relief should be granted. At [33]-[34] their Honours said: '33 Although, in our view, the prosecutors have made good their claim of apprehended bias, we would not grant relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution simply on that account. It is now established that, in the case of a breach of the rules of natural justice, relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution is discretionary. Where, as here, there is a final determination by a superior court, that the decision in question was not affected by actual bias, discretionary considerations necessarily arise. However, in this case, we would grant relief as sought. 34 Where, as in the proceedings before the tribunal, the central issue is credibility, the decision-maker's assessment will often depend upon the demeanour of the witnesses and the manner in which they give their evidence. It cannot be assumed that the prosecutors would have received an unfavourable assessment of their credibility if they had had the opportunity to present their claims without repeated interruptions from the tribunal affirming its lack of belief in their claims. Nor can it be assumed that they could not have given further details of events which might have supported their applications. In particular, it should be noted that the male prosecutor was interrupted when he attempted to give an account of a stoning episode in which, presumably, his home was stoned. These considerations may not, of themselves, constitute a failure to provide the prosecutors with an opportunity to present their claims, but they constitute good reason why relief should not be refused on discretionary grounds.' (Footnotes omitted)