Affan Telek

Scenario:

1. The trial judge does not like the Crown Attorney

Answer: No reasonable apprehension of bias.

2. The trial judge does not accept the defendant’s statement that race was a factor
because the trial judge does not believe the defendant is telling the truth.

Answer: It is not appropriate for a judge to dismiss a defendant's statement about their
experience of discrimination simply because the judge does not believe the defendant is telling
the truth. It is possible for a judge to assess the credibility of a witness and find that their
testimony is not reliable or credible, but this assessment should be based on factors such as
inconsistencies in their testimony, contradictions with other evidence, or other indicia of
dishonesty or unreliability.

However, a judge's personal beliefs or biases should not influence their assessment of the
credibility of a witness, and the judge should not simply dismiss a witness's testimony because it
does not fit with their own worldview or experience. It is important for judges to remain impartial
and to base their decisions on the evidence and the law, rather than on their own personal
beliefs or biases.

Therefore, if the trial judge rejected the defendant's statement about race without any evidence
or reason to doubt its veracity beyond their personal belief that the defendant was not telling the
truth, then this decision may be problematic and could suggest bias on the part of the judge. It is
important for judges to carefully consider all the evidence before them and to provide clear and
reasoned justifications for their decisions.

3. The trial judge does not allow counsel to admit evidence that would support a theory of
racial profiling because the evidence was improperly obtained.

Answer: The trial judge's decision to exclude evidence that would support a theory of racial
profiling because it was improperly obtained may be the right decision if the exclusion is
necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.

Evidence that is obtained through improper means, such as through an illegal search or seizure,
may be excluded from a trial under the doctrine of exclusionary rule. This is because allowing
improperly obtained evidence to be used in court could incentivize law enforcement officials to
violate individuals' rights in order to secure evidence, which would undermine the principles of
justice and fairness.
In this scenario, if the evidence that would support the theory of racial profiling was obtained
through an illegal search or seizure, then the trial judge's decision to exclude the evidence
would be appropriate. However, it is important for the judge to carefully consider the facts of the
case and to ensure that the exclusion of the evidence is necessary to protect the integrity of the
justice system, rather than being a result of bias or prejudice.
It is also worth noting that the exclusion of the evidence does not necessarily mean that the
theory of racial profiling cannot be presented or argued by counsel. The exclusion of evidence
only means that the evidence itself cannot be used in court, but the theory can still be presented
through other forms of evidence or through arguments based on other evidence.

4. The trial judge does not allow counsel to admit evidence of racial profiling because the
trial judge does not want the issue raised

Answer: The trial judge's decision to exclude evidence of racial profiling solely because they do
not want the issue raised would not be a right decision.

Racial profiling is a serious issue that can have significant impacts on individuals and
communities, and it is important for the justice system to address and remedy it. If evidence of
racial profiling is relevant to a case and can help to establish important facts or issues, then it
should be considered by the court.

Judges are expected to remain impartial and to make decisions based on the law and the
evidence before them, rather than on their personal beliefs or preferences. If a judge were to
exclude evidence simply because they did not want to raise an issue or because they did not
believe the issue was important, this could suggest bias or a failure to uphold the principles of
justice and fairness.

Therefore, it is important for judges to carefully consider the admissibility of evidence and to
provide clear and reasoned justifications for their decisions. If evidence of racial profiling is
relevant and reliable, then it should be considered by the court, regardless of the judge's
personal views on the issue.

5. The judge is a good friend of the defence lawyer.

Answer: A judge who is a good friend of the defense lawyer may not be able to remain impartial
and unbiased in the case, and their continued participation as the presiding judge may
constitute a reasonable apprehension of bias. Judges are expected to be impartial and to base
their decisions solely on the evidence and the law, without any personal or professional
relationships or biases influencing their decisions.

If a judge is a friend of one of the lawyers in a case, this could create a perception that the judge
may be biased in favor of that lawyer or their client. Even if the judge believes they can remain
impartial, the perception of bias can still undermine the fairness of the trial and the credibility of
the justice system.
 6. The judge repeatedly interrupts counsel to ask him or her questions during cross-
examination and formal submissions.

Answer: It is not necessarily inappropriate for a judge to interrupt counsel to ask questions
during cross-examination or formal submissions, as long as the interruptions do not create an
appearance of bias or prejudice and do not unduly interfere with counsel's ability to present their
case.
Judges have a responsibility to ensure that the evidence is fully and fairly presented in court,
and to ask questions that may help to clarify issues or to fill gaps in the evidence. However,
judges must also remain impartial and avoid giving the appearance of bias or favoritism towards
one side or the other.

If a judge repeatedly interrupts counsel to ask questions, this could be perceived as a sign that
the judge is biased or is attempting to unduly influence the proceedings. However, if the
questions are focused on clarifying or exploring issues in the evidence and are asked in a
respectful and even-handed manner, this is less likely to be seen as inappropriate.

Ultimately, it is up to the judge to exercise their discretion in deciding when and how to ask
questions during cross-examination and formal submissions. It is important for judges to strike a
balance between ensuring that the evidence is fully and fairly presented and maintaining their
impartiality and neutrality throughout the proceedings.

7. The accused is a teacher at the judge’s daughter’s school.

Answer: Yes, the accused being a teacher at the judge's daughter's school could create an
appearance of bias or conflict of interest on the part of the judge. Judges are expected to
remain impartial and avoid any personal or professional relationships or conflicts of interest that
could affect their ability to make fair and unbiased decisions.

In this case, the judge's relationship with the accused as a teacher could give rise to concerns
that the judge may be biased towards the accused or may be unduly influenced by their
relationship. Even if the judge believes that they can remain impartial and unbiased, the
perception of bias can still undermine the credibility of the justice system and the fairness of the
trial.

It is therefore important for judges to carefully consider any potential conflicts of interest and to
take steps to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety. In this case, the judge may need to
recuse themselves from the case to ensure that the trial is fair and impartial, and that justice is
served. If the judge does not recuse themselves, then the defense or prosecution may seek to
have the judge removed from the case through a motion for disqualification

8. The judge lives in the same neighbourhood as the accused.

Answer: The fact that the judge lives in the same neighborhood as the accused does not
necessarily create a conflict of interest or a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, it could
potentially raise concerns about the judge's ability to remain impartial and unbiased in the case,
especially if the judge has had personal interactions or relationships with the accused or their
family.

Judges are expected to remain impartial and to make decisions based solely on the evidence
and the law, without any personal biases or preferences influencing their decisions. If the judge
has had frequent interactions with the accused or their family in the past, this could potentially
give rise to concerns that the judge may be biased in favor of the accused.

9. The judge’s partner works at the defence counsel’s law firm.

Answer: In this case, the judge's relationship with the defence counsel's law firm could give rise
to concerns that the judge may be biased in favor of the defence counsel or the accused. Even
if the judge believes that they can remain impartial and unbiased, the perception of bias can still
undermine the credibility of the justice system and the fairness of the trial.