Assignment task: Bias and Impartiality
Like R v Brown, which we read in the context of our discussion on policing, R v R.D.S. addresses the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias arising from judicial comments about racial discrimination in policing.
Question: If you're focusing on this issue, go back and take another look at Brown and think about how the two cases compare. What do they tell us about the role of judges in general? About the role of life experience and social location in judging? What is "impartiality" in the context of judging? How does it relate to neutrality and bias? How to the presumptions made about judges compare to those made about juries, and how does the decision in R.D.S. compare to the decision in Parks? What are the consequences if a judge demonstrates that he or she is not impartial? Take a look at the Committee Report to the Canadian Judicial Council in the Camp Inquiry, focusing in particular on paragraphs 272-294. The inquiry arose as a result of comments Justice Camp made in the course of a sexual assault trial, including comments critical of some of the laws that we examined in our discussion of defence counsel. What possible consequences does the Committee identify? Why are these of concern?