Dear Shadow Minister,

Because of the considerable controversy surrounding
political donations and fund-raising 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.

As stated earlier - judges are routinely (if infrequently)
required to decide if they should excuse themselves in
cases where there is a perception of bias. If that perception
does exist especially if linked to facts such as the
fund-raising invitation, then that is typically the course
of action a judge will take.

In some regards 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, he 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," Justice Heydon declared.

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

I am not suggesting for one moment that the royal commission
should not go ahead. It should. Nor am I blaming Justice
Heydon - he accepted in good faith, what he believed to be
an invitation to deliver an apolitical speech to members of
the NSW Bar Association.

It is the organisers of the event who
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 made clear.

Fox,

You quote a gentleman with a PhD in philosophy. What legal training and experience does he have that sets him up as an authority to prefer to Justice Dyson Heydon?

Secondly, the newspapers article to which you refer but do not quote so any here can refer to it, predates Justice Dyson Heydon's ruling and publication of his reasons.

Where then has your authority demonstrated superior or at least equivalent expertise to the Justice and where has he, or you, dispelled the Justice's reasons?

Foxy,

The appearance of neutrality by a hypothetical observer is a far cry from mere perception of bias.

The standard would be that an uninvolved reasonable observer could conclude from Dyson's actions that he was no longer sufficiently neutral to adjudicate the case. Dyson's lengthy response shows clearly that this standard has not been met. That the ACTU is not challenging it in court shows that they know this too.

I am also amused that Penny Wrong and Mark Doofus are trying to get the senate to petition the GG to dismiss Heydon. I suppose that it hasn't occurred to these pinheads that given Labor's wailing and gnashing of teeth when Whitlam was dismissed by the GG at the senate's request, their senate petition essentially gives Whitlam's dismissal a great big tick of legitimacy.

However, since Labor has yet to appeal to the high court, the GG, whose mandate is to act when all other avenues are exhausted, will be unable to do anything.

otb,

What part of
LEAVE ME ALONE!
do you not understand.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Obviously we see things differently in this issue.

Let us leave it at that.

Cheers.

What links does Penny Wong have with any of the unions challenging the Justice and the Royal Commission?

What reliance if any has Wong on the support of union controlled factions in Labor to stitch up their continued support for ministerial and other positions or for pre-selection for that matter?

The public support the Royal Commission. This will backfire badly on Labor and Greens.