Dear Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

For me it has now run its course.

I look forward to the next one.

My apologies.

Please excuse my typo.

I meant to address my Thanks to Steve for this
discussion.

Dyson was caught out so how can you say there is no basis for perceived bias. Perceived to me means there may be a chance of bias. [ It’s in the future]

There is no ruling for something that is perceived. It will always remain a possibility. You have 70 % of au saying the same thing

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

Correct and he rightly continued with the Royal Commission.

Now, why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?

For starters, the Royal Commission has already resulted in some very nasty grubs coming to the attention of the police.

Good on the Justice for having the courage to continue despite the sledging. Because there are many small people, unionist and business owner alike who have had the courage to come forward and have placed themselves at risk of reprisals from union heavies and the nasties associated with them.

Let me again state quite clearly for those whose
comprehension skills are in difficulty.
If I'm repeating things already covered in this
discussion, my apologies.

From what we know Justice Heydon accepted in good
faith, what he believed to be an invitation to
deliver an apolitical speech to members of the NSW
Bar Association. The event was open to any member of
the NSW bar - irrespective of their political
persuasions. It seems the organisers of the event
betrayed Justice Heydon's good intentions by not
adequately disclosing to him that the occasion was in
fact a fund-raising opportunity for the Liberal Party
as the printed invitation makes clear.

Given that he was a sitting royal commissioner there was a
clear obligation on the organisers to make the nature of the
event abundantly clear to Justice Heydon, rather than to
rely on him to open an attachment to the email he was sent.

Immediately upon being alerted to the relevant facts Justice
Heydon withdrew from the event. His response was entirely
proper. However we were still left to ask if, despite this
the Liberal Party had rendered Justice Heydon's position as
royal commissioner untenable?

Blamesless as he undoubtedly was - Justice Heydon had been
placed in an invidious position by the NSW Liberal Party.
And questioning the decision he made to stay on - is not
sledging the man personally, but asking questions about
his position as royal commissioner is quite valid especially
since he has argued in his own judgements that the mere
perception of bias should lead to any judge being disqualified
from hearing a case in which this concern arises.

Fox,

Nothing new.

Why would any well-intentioned, reasonable citizen want to sledge the learned Justice and the Royal Commission he heads? It just doesn't figure does it?