This article is the first one in the Role of a Judge series.
PLATO RECOUNTS Socrates’ description that “four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially”. The impartiality and independence of the judiciary is an age-old discussion, yet the parameters remain indistinct.
Partiality is where the judge has an ‘interest’ or ‘preconception’ that affects his impartiality. Imperfect impartiality is accepted and expected since “judges are but men, and are swayed like other men by vehement prejudices”. The key question is “how much partiality can be tolerated before rule of law objectives are thwarted to an unacceptable degree?”
It is notable that when the law requires impartiality from the judiciary, it does so while being cognisant of the inherent bias that exists in all humans. The expectation of judges is not to be devoid of internal prejudice but to set aside their bias whenever they don the robes, to enable the proper discharge of their duties. As Sir Matthew Hale said, “in the execution of justice, I carefully lay aside my own passions, and not give way to them however provoked”.
