Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
LJU4801 PORTFOLIO-ASSIGNMENT 03 SEMESTER 2
FOR 2022-LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. 90% AND ABOVE.
DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. QUALITY WORK WITH
FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY. WRITTEN BY
THE PROFFESIONAL TUTOR.
QUESTION 1
1.1 What does judicial impartiality mean? (4) (max ½ page)
According to Tsele, judicial impartiality means that a judge must be open to
persuasion, without rigidly adhering to personal, and often preconceived views about
an issue. 1
Impartiality requires that judges approach their adjudicative task with an
open and unbiased mind, and that they suspend – to the best of their ability – the
influence of their own ideological and political commitments when interpreting and
applying the law. Furthermore, when hearing a matter, a judge should not have
already decided the outcome before he hears each side. This principle is placed
under threat if judges take their own personal allegiances — whether they be
political, religious, ethnic, or arising from some other source — into account when
adjudicating a matter. In essence, the opposite of impartiality, therefore, is bias.
However, it bears mentioning that impartiality in this sense is difficult to guarantee,
since whatever structural safeguards are in place, the responsibility tied to judicial
impartiality is one that ultimately falls to individual judges to exercise. As the
Constitutional Court in SARFU affirmed, ‘it must never be forgotten that an impartial
judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial.’2
1 Tsele M “Rights and religion; bias and beliefs: Can a judge speak God?” (2018) Journal for Juridical Science 3
2 President of the RSA v SARFU 2 supra par 48.
1
Downloaded by: Nhongo |
Distribution of this document is illegal
LJU4801 PORTFOLIO-ASSIGNMENT 03 SEMESTER 2
FOR 2022-LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. 90% AND ABOVE.
DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. QUALITY WORK WITH
FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY. WRITTEN BY
THE PROFFESIONAL TUTOR.
QUESTION 1
1.1 What does judicial impartiality mean? (4) (max ½ page)
According to Tsele, judicial impartiality means that a judge must be open to
persuasion, without rigidly adhering to personal, and often preconceived views about
an issue. 1
Impartiality requires that judges approach their adjudicative task with an
open and unbiased mind, and that they suspend – to the best of their ability – the
influence of their own ideological and political commitments when interpreting and
applying the law. Furthermore, when hearing a matter, a judge should not have
already decided the outcome before he hears each side. This principle is placed
under threat if judges take their own personal allegiances — whether they be
political, religious, ethnic, or arising from some other source — into account when
adjudicating a matter. In essence, the opposite of impartiality, therefore, is bias.
However, it bears mentioning that impartiality in this sense is difficult to guarantee,
since whatever structural safeguards are in place, the responsibility tied to judicial
impartiality is one that ultimately falls to individual judges to exercise. As the
Constitutional Court in SARFU affirmed, ‘it must never be forgotten that an impartial
judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial.’2
1 Tsele M “Rights and religion; bias and beliefs: Can a judge speak God?” (2018) Journal for Juridical Science 3
2 President of the RSA v SARFU 2 supra par 48.
1
Downloaded by: Nhongo |
Distribution of this document is illegal
