McGuirk v University of New South Wales
[2008] NSWADTAP 44
•23 July 2008
Appeal Panel - Internal
CITATION: McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2008] NSWADTAP 44 PARTIES: APPELLANT
(Gerard) Michael McGuirkRESPONDENT
University of New South WalesFILE NUMBER: 089003 HEARING DATES: 18 March 2008 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 30 June 2008
DATE OF DECISION:
23 July 2008BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Fitzgerald K - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Bias MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter DECISION UNDER APPEAL: McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWADT 258 FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 063197, 063262 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 10/26/2007 LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989CASES CITED: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Li v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 19; (2000) 96 FCR 125
Re JRL; ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342Attorney General for NSW v Klewer [2003] NSWCA 295
McGuirk v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2008] NSWADTAP 11
University of New South Wales v McGuirk [2006] NSWADTAP 38
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 806REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
In person
University of New South WalesORDERS: Application to disqualify Magistrate Hennessy for bias refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1 At the beginning of the hearing of this appeal, Mr McGuirk applied for me, the Presiding Member, to disqualify myself for actual or apprehended bias. Mr Singleton, counsel for the University of New South Wales, said that he was not on notice that such an application would be made but was content to respond to it as best he could. This is an issue that I must decide myself. It is not a question for the Appeal Panel as a whole. Support for that view can be found in the decision of Kartinyeri and Anor v Commonwealth of Australia (1998) 156 ALR 300, [1998] HCA 0052 where Callinan J decided for himself whether he should be disqualified from hearing a matter.
2 Since 2004, Mr McGuirk has made several applications for documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (FOI Act) to the University of New South Wales. Both Mr McGuirk and the University have appealed to the Appeal Panel against many of the Tribunal’s decisions. In all of the Appeal Panel proceedings, I have been assigned to be the presiding member. Both parties have also appealed to the Supreme Court against decisions of the Appeal Panel.
Preliminary issues
3 Three preliminary issues. Mr McGuirk raised three issues which need to be addressed before considering the substance of his application. The first is whether I am obliged to identify evidence in addition to that presented by Mr McGuirk, which is relevant to the application for disqualification. The second issue is whether Mr McGuirk is entitled to make an application for me to disqualify myself from hearing any matter to which he is a party or whether a separate application has to be made in relation to each proceeding. The third issue is whether the University is estopped from opposing the application for disqualification because it has previously made an application for Mr Montgomery, a member of the Tribunal, to disqualify himself in proceedings involving the same parties.
4 Obligation on Tribunal to identify relevant evidence. The Tribunal, including the Appeal Panel, has a statutory obligation “. . . to ensure that all relevant material is disclosed to the Tribunal so as to enable it to determine all of the relevant facts in issue in any proceedings”: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, section 73(5)(b). Mr McGuirk relied on this provision to support his submission that as well as the matters he has brought to my attention, I should make my own enquiries as to whether there is any other relevant material that would enable me to determine whether I should disqualify myself for actual or apprehended bias. He also said that if I consider that the evidence he has provided is insufficient he would be willing to provide further evidence in support of his application.
5 Section 73(5)(b) requires the Tribunal to ensure that relevant material is disclosed so that it can determine relevant facts in issue. It does not require the Tribunal to search for material itself or to conduct its own investigations. It obliges the Tribunal to direct the parties to disclose material if it considers that certain material is relevant to a fact in issue. In this case, Mr McGuirk has made an application for me to disqualify myself. It is not my duty to identify material that may support that application. Nor would it be procedurally fair for me to consider Mr McGuirk’s application on the basis of the existing evidence, form a preliminary view as to the strength of that evidence, and then give him an opportunity to adduce further evidence if I considered the existing evidence to be inadequate.
6 Single or multiple applications? The second issue is whether an application for bias can relate to all proceedings to which Mr McGuirk is a party and I am the presiding member. The answer to that question depends on two things. Firstly, whether the application is based on allegations which are specific to the proceedings and secondly whether the other party or parties are given an adequate opportunity to respond to such an application. In this case, the factual matters on which Mr McGuirk relied are not particular to these proceedings. Consequently if I decide to disqualify myself then that decision will apply to all proceedings involving the same parties. However, if I decide not to disqualify myself then that decision applies only to these proceedings. Mr McGuirk would be able to make a new application for disqualification in future proceedings if he has additional grounds for doing so.
7 Estoppel issue. Mr McGuirk argued that the University was estopped from opposing the application for disqualification because it had previously made an application for Mr Montgomery, a member of the tribunal, to disqualify himself from sitting. Mr Singleton denied that he had ever made such an application. Even if Mr Singleton had made an application for Mr Montgomery to disqualify himself for bias in another proceeding that does not mean that the University is estopped from opposing an application for disqualification in different proceedings involving a different member. That conclusion is so self evident that it needs no elaboration.
Basis for application
8 Mr McGuirk put forward seven matters which he said supported his application for disqualification for actual or apprehended bias. In summary, those matters were that:
Legal Principles relating to disqualification for bias
(i) Mr McGuirk has brought proceedings in the Supreme Court requesting that orders made by the Appeal Panel when I was presiding, be quashed because he was not afforded procedural fairness;
(ii) when I was presiding, the Appeal Panel refused his applications to refer two questions of law to the Supreme Court, but referred a different question of law when a party represented by the Crown Solicitor requested a referral;
(iii) I am a “protégé” of the Tribunal’s President, Judge O’Connor, and Judge O’Connor has “slandered” him, although not by name, in the Tribunal’s 2006/2007 Annual Report;
(iv) following a hearing on 19 October 2007, which Mr McGuirk did not attend, the Appeal Panel decided to determine applications made by Mr McGuirk on the material then before it and written submissions from the parties;
(v) when I have been presiding the Appeal Panel has made a “pattern” of decisions in favour of the University;
(vi) Mr McGuirk complained to the Chief Justice of New South Wales that I had refused to provide him with a transcript of proceedings; and
(vii) when I was presiding the Appeal Panel failed to adopt a view expressed by another Appeal Panel member during the course of the hearing.
9 The Tribunal is bound by the rules of procedural fairness: ADT Act, section 73(2). There are two long established rules of procedural fairness, namely the hearing rule and the bias rule. The bias rule requires a decision maker to disqualify himself from hearing a matter if he or she is actually biased or a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision maker might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 75 ALJR 277 per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [6] and [8]. The rule against bias is designed to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is maintained. The principles in relation to actual bias were summarised by Drummond J in Li v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 19; (2000) 96 FCR 125 at 133-134 (citations omitted):
10 The point has often been made that judicial officers must not disqualify themselves too readily. In Re JRL; ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 Mason J said that for an application for bias to succeed, it is not enough for a fair minded observer to reasonably apprehend that the decision maker will make a decision adversely to one party. Any pre-judgement on the part of the decision maker must be “firmly established”. In Attorney General for NSW v Klewer [2003] NSWCA 295, the Court of Appeal (Davies AJA, Mason P and Meagher AJA agreeing) noted these comments and added at [15] that:
(a) Actual bias exists where the decision-maker has prejudged the case against the applicant, or has acted with such partisanship or hostility as to show that the decision-maker had a mind made up against the applicant and was not open to persuasion in favour of the applicant.
(b) The emphasis is upon the state of mind which affects the decision-making rather than elements of the process of decision-making taken in isolation.
(c) Proof of an intentional state of mind adverse to the party is not the only way of proving actual bias. Such bias may be subconscious, provided it is real.
(d) It is not sufficient proof of actual bias to show that the decision-maker has expressed views adverse to the party's position at an early stage of the proceedings unless there is also proof that those views were incapable of being changed in the course of the proceedings. Though relevant to proof of actual bias, displays of irritation or impatience and the use of sarcasm by the decision-maker during the hearing are not, without more, generally sufficient to establish such bias, proof of which requires a finding on a question of fact, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
11 In summary, Mr McGuirk must firmly establish either that I am actually biased against him or that a fair-minded person would reasonably apprehend that I would not decide his application fairly and impartially.
Unsubstantiated allegations . . . made by disappointed litigants provide no basis upon which a judicial officer, who has been allocated to a particular matter, should recuse.
Application of legal principles to the facts
12 Supreme Court proceedings. Mr McGuirk said he has brought proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking orders in relation to the conduct of the Appeal Panel. He said that he intends to apply to amend the orders he is seeking. My understanding is that Mr McGuirk has applied to the Supreme Court for certain orders including an order of certiorari to quash a decision of the Tribunal and for consequential relief asserting that the Tribunal did not afford him procedural fairness. According to Mr McGuirk, I should disqualify myself from hearing any further matters in which he is a party on the basis that he has made that application to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court file number 03007/07). Mr Singleton submitted that even if Mr McGuirk’s appeal to the Supreme Court is successful that is not evidence of bias.
13 Conclusion. The fact that Mr McGuirk has appealed against a decision of the Appeal Panel and one of the grounds of appeal is procedural unfairness, does not give rise to actual or apprehended bias. As I have said, both the University and Mr McGuirk have appealed against decisions of the Appeal Panel. Parties are entitled to appeal against Tribunal decisions on a question of law and do so regularly. Even if the Supreme Court finds procedural unfairness, that does not mean that I am biased or that a fair-minded person would reasonably apprehend that I would not decide the application fairly and impartially.
14 Refusal to refer questions of law. Mr McGuirk's second point was that he has applied to the Appeal Panel on two occasions to have a question of law referred to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 118 of the ADT Act. He says that the Appeal Panel with me presiding refused both those applications. He also says that subsequently an Appeal Panel with me presiding referred a different question of law to the Supreme Court at the request of a party represented by the Crown Solicitor's Office. He says that the referral of that matter was “dodgy” and that the Appeal Panel’s decision not to refer the questions of law that he identified to the Supreme Court cost him $20,000.
15 Conclusion. While there was no evidence of these assertions, I accept, for the purpose of these proceedings, that the Appeal Panel refused to refer two questions of law to the Supreme Court but referred a different question at the request of lawyers for a government agency. However, without evidence or elaboration from Mr McGuirk, I do not accept his opinion that the referral of the question to the Supreme Court was “dodgy”, or that the Appeal Panel’s failure to refer a question at his request cost him $20,000. No adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the Appeal Panel referred a different question from the question that Mr McGuirk posed, in separate proceedings.
16 Association with President O’Connor. Mr McGuirk’s third point was that in the Tribunal’s 2006/2007 Annual Report President O'Connor slandered him although not by name, implying that he had abused members of the Registry and that he was a vexatious litigant. Although not identified, I have assumed that the passages from the Annual Report to which Mr McGuirk is referring are as follows:
17 Mr McGuirk acknowledges that he was not mentioned in the Annual Report but says that President O’Connor was referring to him. He also said that I am President O'Connor's “protégé” and, impliedly, that I share the view of him that he has attributed to President O'Connor. Mr McGuirk also mentioned a “persistent complaint project” that he says is being conducted by the New South Wales Ombudsman's Office. He asserted that Mr Chris Wheeler, the Deputy Ombudsman, President O'Connor and I have been exchanging e-mails. He also asserted that I have been colluding with Mr Wheeler in an attempt to prevent people intent on exposing corruption from lodging their applications.
Litigants running their own cases are commonplace in tribunals. They are much rarer in the court system. An increasingly difficult management problem for tribunals is the repeat litigant. While the repeat litigant is not unknown in the court system, the barriers to access typical of the court system place constraints on their activity. For several years now, one of the most popular subjects at tribunal and court conferences has been how to respond to the ‘querulent’ litigant. ‘Querulent’ is a term invented by a professor of forensic psychiatry to describe a person who has an obsession with pursuing a perceived wrong, and who will try many avenues of complaint and hearing. Studies of this type of behaviour have found that often a real injustice was suffered, but it went unrecognised. The person now has a distorted sense of the significance of the matter, and of the role played by the various institutions and officials to whom the problem has been taken. The original wrong may well disappear entirely from view, as the person pursues procedural complaints against the officials and institutions with whom he or she has dealt along the way.
Sometimes obsessive behaviour has a deeper explanation connected with psychiatric conditions or other disabilities. These users will often file mountains of paper, they will regularly arrive at the counter seeking attention or make numerous phone or fax calls. They may become personally abusive to tribunal staff. They will often make formal applications in connection with their filed claims on narrow, procedural points necessitating the giving of notices to their opponent, and the convening of hearings. These activities can place major strain on the capacity of complaint handling institutions including tribunals. . .
It is becomingly increasingly clear that complaint-handling institutions need greater gateway powers to manage the kind of behaviours mentioned. Important work has been done in recent years by the National Committee of Australian Ombudsmen. The Deputy Ombudsman for New South Wales (Mr C Wheeler) has been examining the subject. The Council of Australasian Tribunals in New South Wales (COAT), a voluntary association of tribunal members and others interested in the work of tribunals, is beginning work on what registries might do to develop common standards and practices to deal with the activities of repeat litigants and those who engage in abusive and other unreasonable behaviour.
18 Conclusion. There is no factual basis for the inference that President O’Connor was referring to Mr McGuirk in the passages quoted above or that I endorse any view that may be held by President O’Connor. I am aware of the project being undertaken by the Ombudsman’s Office in relation to unreasonable conduct of complainants. I agree that I have spoken to Mr Wheeler and exchanged emails with him in relation that project. Those communications occurred in the context of my duties as a Deputy President of the Tribunal. I do not agree with the inference that Mr McGuirk draws from these facts that I am colluding with Mr Wheeler in an attempt to prevent applicants from exposing corruption. In my view, a fair minded observer would conclude that I have done nothing more or less than carry out my duties as a Deputy President of the Tribunal.
19 Procedure after non-appearance on 19 October 2007. The fourth point relates to hearings which were set down on 19 October 2007. Mr McGuirk did not appear that day and was not able to be contacted by phone. He does not object to the fact that the Appeal Panel proceeded with his matter on that day however he objects to the manner in which the Panel subsequently proceeded. In particular he says that he had a reasonable excuse for not attending and that an adverse implication can be drawn from the fact that no transcript of the proceedings was made available even though the Appeal Panel undertook to provide him with the transcript.
20 Conclusion. The history of that matter has been set out in a previous decision of the Tribunal: McGuirk v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2008] NSWADTAP 11 (10 March 2008) at [4] to [8]:
4 A hearing date suitable to the parties and the Appeal Panel members was not able to be arranged until 19 October 2007. McGuirk did not appear on that date. Mr Singleton, representing the University, made submissions on the question of whether the correct and preferable decision was for the University to give Mr McGuirk access to the Kirby memorandum notwithstanding that it was an exempt document. Given Mr McGuirk’s non-attendance, the Appeal Panel made the following directions:
1. The Appeal Panel will ask Mr McGuirk to provide an explanation for his non-attendance on 19 October 2007, within 7 days. If an explanation is provided, the Tribunal will seek submissions from the University as to whether the explanation is adequate and whether Mr McGuirk should be permitted to file any further material in relation to this matter. The Appeal Panel will then determine that issue on the papers.
21 In relation to the submission that Mr McGuirk had a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing on 19 October 2007, the Appeal Panel in that matter came to a different view. That view does not disclose actual or apprehended bias.
5 On 22 October 2007, the Tribunal wrote to Mr McGuirk advising him of these directions. On 22 November 2007 Mr McGuirk wrote to the Tribunal advising that he had not had an opportunity for at least a month to review the matters that he currently has before the Tribunal. He says he phoned the Registry on that day and subsequently conducted a thorough search of his ‘in tray’ and discovered an unopened envelope from the Tribunal containing the 22 October 2007 letter. He says that notwithstanding that he did not read that letter until 22 November 2007, he advised the Tribunal of the reason for his non-attendance on 19 October in a facsimile sent on 23 October 2007. That facsimile explained Mr McGuirk’s non attendance in a separate matter (053437) on 23 October 2007. In explaining the reasons for his non-attendance on that day, Mr McGuirk referred to the fact that he had made an application to the Local Court in Burwood on 19 October 2007 for a warrant to be issued pursuant to section 229 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 for the arrest of the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police, Andrew Scipione. Mr McGuirk apologised for his non-attendance on 23 October 2007. Mr McGuirk submitted that he clearly had good reasons not only for failing to attend the Tribunal on 19 October 2007, but also for failing to comply with the directions for filing further material.
2. If the Appeal Panel decides that Mr McGuirk has provided an adequate explanation for his non-attendance, he will be directed to file and serve any further submissions in relation to the ‘override discretion’ within a further 21 days. The University will be given a further 21 days to file and serve any submissions in reply. The Appeal Panel will then determine the ‘override discretion’ issue
6 By letter of 28 November 2007, the University submitted that Mr McGuirk’s explanation of his non-attendance was not adequate for the following reasons:
7 On 5 December 2007 the Registry wrote to the parties advising that the Appeal Panel was of the view that Mr McGuirk has not provided an acceptable explanation for his non-attendance on 19 October 2007 and that consequently the appeal will be determined on the basis of the submissions before the Tribunal on that date. The parties were also advised that reasons for the Appeal Panel’s view that Mr McGuirk’s explanation was not acceptable would be provided in the reasons for decision. We now provide those reasons.
1. Mr McGuirk admits that he did not write to the Tribunal advising of his reasons for non-attendance until 23 October 2007, four days after the hearing day.
2. Mr McGuirk was always aware that the matter was listed for hearing on 19 October 2007 as early as 6 August 2007, when the Tribunal wrote to him. Despite this, he offers no reason for his discourtesy in failing to inform the Tribunal or the University before the hearing date, of his intention to not attend the hearing.
3. The reasons for his non-attendance, as set out in his letter of 23 October 2007 are not a sufficient excuse for his non-attendance. There is no rule of law, or ethical or other code of conduct applicable to Mr McGuirk (who is not legally qualified) that requires that criminal proceedings (of which in any event he was an applicant) take precedence over civil proceedings. It was always open to him to instruct a lawyer to appear on his behalf in either set of proceedings but he chose not to do so.
4. The fact that Mr McGuirk is involved as an applicant in a large number of different legal actions is no excuse for his failure to notify the Tribunal of this proposed non-attendance.
8 We accept that Mr McGuirk was in another court on 19 October 2007. However, he had been on notice of the hearing since 6 August 2007. If he was unable to attend on that day, he should have advised the Tribunal and the University prior to the hearing. He has not explained his failure to do so. Furthermore, Mr McGuirk had an opportunity to provide written submissions following the decision in the first matter. He has had ample opportunity to bring any relevant matters to the Appeal Panel’s attention. Consequently, we will determine the remaining issue on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, written submissions from both parties and Mr Singleton’s oral submissions to the Appeal Panel.
22 In relation to Mr McGuirk’s assertion that the Tribunal had failed to supply a transcript, I refer to the Registrar’s correspondence with Mr McGuirk dated 30 October 2007, as follows:
23 In my view, this explanation is self-explanatory and disposes of any submission that an adverse implication can be drawn from the fact that a transcript was not available.
I refer to the Tribunal’s previous correspondence in relation to these matters in which you were informed that copies of the transcripts of the proceedings on 19 October 2007 would be posted out to you when they became available.
The agency responsible for recording proceedings in the Tribunal has advised that the monitor did not record these proceedings. We have not been provided with any further explanation for this error. Unfortunately that means that there are no transcripts available in relation to the proceedings on 19 October 2007.
24 Pattern of adverse decisions. The fifth point was that the Appeal Panel, with me presiding, has made several decisions against him. He quoted two decisions. The first was University of New South Wales v McGuirk [2006] NSWADTAP 38 where the Appeal Panel set aside the Tribunal’s decision to grant access to a copy of a legal advice prepared by Bret Walker SC and Andrew Bell. The second was McGuirk v University of New South Wales (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 4 where the Appeal Panel set aside the Tribunal’s decision on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review the University’s decision to refuse to continue to deal with Mr McGuirk’s application under the FOI Act. Mr McGuirk suggested that I analyse the Tribunal’s decision because in his view, in 80% to 90% of freedom of information cases the Tribunal has found against the applicant. He said that the only possible inference which can be drawn from that statistic is that the Tribunal is biased in favour of the executive government.
25 Conclusion. Although the Appeal Panel made a decision adverse to Mr McGuirk in the first matter, when the matter was remitted by the Supreme Court on a different question, the Appeal Panel decided to give Mr McGuirk access to the legal advice: University of New South Wales v McGuirk (No 2) [2008] NSWADTAP 8 (29 February 2008). In relation to the second matter, Mr McGuirk said that while he agrees that one-off adverse decisions do not indicate bias, there is a pattern of decision-making in this case. He offered to present a full history of the Appeal Panel’s decisions. As I have said, Mr McGuirk has had an opportunity to present his evidence and it is not incumbent on me to give him a further opportunity to bolster that evidence if I consider it insufficient to make out his case. In any event, as Mason J said in Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 66 ALR 239 at 245 and 246:
26 In addition, Mr McGuirk asserted that I was not acting in good faith in making these decisions and relied on several decision including SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2007] HCA 35; 81 ALJR 1401at [13] and Sun Zhan Qui v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 151 ALR 505 at 563-264. Neither of these decision is relevant to the determination of actual or apprehended bias in the circumstances of this case.
There may be many situations in which previous decisions of a judicial officer on issues of fact and law may generate an expectation that he is likely to decide issues in a particular case adversely to one of the parties. But this does not mean either that he will approach the issues in that case otherwise than with an impartial and unprejudiced mind in the sense in which that expression is used in the authorities or that his previous decisions provide an acceptable basis for inferring that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will approach the issues in this way.
27 Complaint to the Chief Justice. Mr McGuirk asserted that he has made a complaint about me to the Chief Justice of New South Wales and that he received a reply to that correspondence. Mr McGuirk said that the context was that he had applied for a transcript of proceedings in relation to an appeal to the Supreme Court but that I had declined to make the transcript available.
28 Conclusion. I have no recollection of this incident nor was I advised that any complaint had been made to the Chief Justice about it. It is very difficult for me to reply to an allegation without knowing the details. In relation to the complaint Mr McGuirk says he made to the Chief Justice, in Attorney General for NSW v Klewer [2003] NSWCA 295, the Court of Appeal found that making a complaint to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) did not raise an apprehension of bias. The Court agreed at [14] that the making of a complaint to bodies such as ICAC or the Judicial Commission about a judge hearing that person’s case, will not automatically mean that the judge should disqualify him or herself. That principle applies equally to complaints to the Chief Justice of NSW.
29 Comment by Appeal Panel Member. Mr McGuirk said that in the course of proceedings in another matter involving him and the University, the non-judicial Member, Professor Blake, made a point which the Appeal Panel ultimately did not adopt. Mr McGuirk said that I had overruled Professor Blake and that that indicated bias. The Supreme Court rejected Mr McGuirk’s submission that this disclosed an error of law in McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 806 (25 July 2007). In that case, Associate Justice Harrison said at [28] to [30]:
30 Professor Blake did not give a dissenting decision in the matter before the Appeal Panel.
28 Counsel for Mr McGuirk referred to passages of the transcript where Professor Blake, a Member of the Appeal Panel, commented:
29 Counsel for Mr McGuirk submitted that the Appeal Panel was entitled to draw upon Professor Blake’s expertise and should have considered and averted to it in its reasons and by failing to do so erred in law.
“That is certainly not my experience. That in fact chancellors and vice chancellors have a great deal of implied authority and daily are making decisions in terms of the day to day running of the university. And I would have thought whether or not to release the documents would be very much within the normal discretion of the chancellor and would not be dependent on a resolution. Now it would be an extraordinary legalistic university that only gave the chancellor power pursuant to a resolution.”
30 The Appeal Panel is not bound to rely upon the expertise and general comments of one of its members. Nor is it mandatory for reference to be made to comments of the Tribunal Member during the hearing if they do not form the basis of its decision. There is no error of law.
31 Conclusion. The Supreme Court has found that the Appeal Panel is not bound to rely on expertise or general comments of one of its members. Nor will a failure to do so indicate actual or apprehended bias.
Conclusion
32 I am not persuaded on the basis of any of the matters put forward by Mr McGuirk, either individually or collectively, that I should disqualify myself from presiding in this appeal on the ground of actual or apprehended bias.
Orders
Application to disqualify Magistrate Hennessy for bias refused.
0
15
2