*OTB*

Our thanks for your link to "the reasons" which I have now had a quick read through.

For the most part, I thought Dyson made a good showing of himself, with strong and well reasoned argument. I thought there were very few weaknesses but there are a few in my unqualified opinion.

1. Dyson makes a compelling case visa vi what constitutes a "fair minded" person. However, it reads to me as a "fair minded" person who is capable of a "high level of reasoning." Thus, I believe it is questionable to expect a lay person to reason through the issues in the same manner that he describes and I note further that I cannot recall that he really defined the capacity of a "lay person."

(and if this thread develops I'll pull a few examples of that out if anyone is interested, though it does not appear that many posters have actually read it, as OTB is correct in pointing out)

2. The second area of weakness concerns the event itself. Whilst I can accept it was not a fund raiser per se, even people who did not attend but who were invited could still donate. And if that is the usual practice with these kind of events then it again raises thee question of whether a "fair minded" & "lay person" could have reasoned out that it was not inappropriate for him to attend irrespective.

t.b.c.

More broadly, I have from time to time heard various senior members of the judiciary state that it is extremely important that they are "well" paid as this removes any temptation of bribery or other corrupt practice. Whilst it is not a position that I personally agree with it is a soap box that they all appear to stand on willingly.

Thus, I suspect that most of them when engaged with work of this nature would adopt the precautionary principal and not go anywhere near these kinds of activities period because even putting aside "fair minded" people, what of the "unfair minded" people who respond to slogans and dog whistle politics?

Clearly both sides of politics thrive on dumbing things down to no small extent and even at times harness people up by inflaming their prejudices. The media then get on board and reason at times goes out the window. As others here often say, "Why let facts get in the way of a good story?"

Thus, he should have known better than to have anything to do with this at all, and because there is always a temptation for some unscrupulous and criminal elements to attempt to sway the judicial process, he and his assistant counsel were less than diligent in ascertaining exactly what this event was all about. Again, he should have known better.

3. As for Dyson being technically challenged, well, it's pretty pathetic from a modern perspective but we must remember that these doddering old wig parasites really are in no small way a product of a by-gone era.

Thus, whilst extremely lame, I can accept that his skills are deficient in this regard and I expect that there are more than a few others who are in the same boat.

However, since guvments have been using email, I cannot think of one email that I have ever received where the substance of the response has not been contained within an attachment.

t.b.c.

Thereafter, I think that Dyson ought be very thankful for the email from Mr Winslowe else he otherwise likely would have gone ahead and given the address.

On that ground, he ought be looking for another assistant who should have protected him from that, especially as Dyson is apparently in his words, "notoriously" lame when it comes to email.

So *Shadow Minister* I wouldn't be so sure that an appeal is certain to go down.

And given that Dyson has done an excellent job in highlighting the deficiencies of the ACTU and CFMEU's cases, I expect that if there is a next time, that they will do a far better job.

And of course, the "apprehension of bias" will grow in the mind of the "unfair minded," a matter of fact which I expect the alp is counting on.

So, more Union blood must be spilled, and whilst the main stream fights it out, Xenophon and the others have more room to grow.

You can not remove a perception of bias, no matter what he does you can not eliminate the lib Logo .

Doog,

We know that you think that any one that even wears blue socks is biased.

The point is that apprehended bias does not think that some pillock in the city thinks that they may be biased, it is that the person under consideration has a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case / inquiry that he is likely to make a decision based on that interest. Dyson showed clearly that the ACTU had no base for that accusation.

Justice Dyson Heydon has been placed in an invidious position
because of the considerable controversy surrounding
political donations and fundraising events. The mere suggestion
that a Royal Commissioner should be involved in such events will
carry the taint of scandal. This is damage of a kind that
can rarely be undone by a denial of culpability.

The key question is: does the integrity of an individual (Heydon)
outweigh the public interest in maintaining the highest levels
of trust and confidence in the institution of a Royal
Commission?

Judges are routinely required to decide if they should excuse
themselves in cases where there is a perception of bias.
If the perception does exist especially if linked to facts such as
the fundraising invitation then that is typically the course
of action a judge will take.

In some regards we're told that the standards applied to a
Royal Commissioner are even higher, as the scope of their
authority is wider than that of a judge. Justice Heydon has
argued in his own judgements that the mere perception of bias
should lead to a judge being disqualified from hearing a case in
which this concern arises.

In a 2011 High Court Judgement, Heydon wrote:

"It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the
judge be neutral. It is for this reason that the appearance
of departure from neutrality is a ground for disqualification."

"It is the perception of the hypothetical observer that is the
yardstick," Heydon declared.

It is therefore Justice Heydon's own reasoning that provides the
answer to the question of what he should have done.