The rule against bias requires claims to be articulated in twp steps. First, the source of bias must be identified. Second, it must be explained how that claimed source of bias might lead an observer to conclude the decision maker might not be sufficiently impartial. This second step requires those claiming bias to "join the dots" or explain how bias might arise. Courts have rejected attempts to satisfy the second step by use of numerical calculations, holding that numbers alone do not speak for themselves. This article questions that assumption and suggests that, sometimes, the sheer weight of numbers can create an apprehension of bias.
History
Journal
Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum
Volume
100
Article number
5
Pagination
60-78
Location
Canberra, A.C.T.
ISSN
1322-9869
Language
English
Publication classification
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal, C Journal article