| 单词 | Bias |
| 释义 | 偏私 A pre-existing favourable or unfavourable attitude to an issue when impartial consideration of the merits of the case is required. There are two forms of bias. First, actual bias, if proved, would disqualify a person acting in a judicial capacity without more. Second, an appearance of bias, which arises when, having regard to the relevant circumstances, there is a real danger of bias on the part of the person acting in a judicial capacity, in the sense that he might unfairly regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party to the issue under consideration by him: R v Gough [1993] AC 646; R v Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139 (CA); Panel on Takeovers and Mergers & Anor v Cheng Kai Man William [1995] 3 HKC 517, 2 HKLR 302 (PC); Cheung Francis & Anor v Insider Dealing Tribunal (No 2) [2000] 1 HKC 437, 2 HKLRP 113 (CA); Bahadur v Secretary for Security [2000] 2 HKC 486 (CA). Bias denotes a departure from the standard of even-handed justice which the law requires from those who occupy judicial office, such as an arbitrator: Franklin & Ors v Minister of Town & County Planning [1947] AC 87, 2 All ER 289 (HL). Bias may be suspected if a decision-maker has a financial or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the decision: Dimes v Proprietors Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HL Cas 759 (HL). Bias may also be inquired into if the decision a decision-maker made would lead to the promotion of a cause in which he was involved together with one of the parties: R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates & Ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 (HL). Bias may also exist if a person who is in the position of accuser or prosecutor participates in the decision about a charge which has been made: Taylor v National Union of Seamen [1967] 1 All ER 767, 1 WLR 532; R v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex p Hook [1976] 3 All ER 452, 1 WLR 1052 (CA); R v Lift Contractors’ Disciplinary Board ex p Otis Elevator Co (HK) Ltd (1995) 5 HKPLR 78 (CA). See also Bias rule; Procedural fairness. Courts and procedure - Prejudice. The test for bias is the one prevailing in England, namely whether there has been a real danger of bias on the part of the decision-maker: R v Gough [1993] AC 646, Panel on Takeovers and Mergers & Anor v Cheng Kai Man [1995] 3 HKC 517, 2 HKLR 302 (PC); Bahadur v Security for Security [2000] 2 HKLRD 113. The Australian test under Webb & Anor v R (1993-1994) 181 CLR 41 is not applicable in Hong Kong: Bahadur v Security for Security, supra. A trial judge or magistrate who adopts an interventionist role can render a trial unfair so as to cause the conviction to be unsafe or unsatisfactory. One of the propositions established by authorities is that actual bias on the part of the judge or magistrate need not be established. It is enough if by his conduct he will be thought by the informed bystander to be taking over the conduct of the case from the prosecution. The ultimate question for the consideration of an appellate court is whether the judge’s or magistrate’s conduct was such that it would have caused the informed bystander listening to the case to say that the losing party had not had a fair trial: R v Yeung Mau Lam [1991] 2 HKLR 468 (CA); Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 All ER 155, 2 QB 55 (CA). See also Judicial notice; Withdrawal of juror. 在須要不偏私地考慮個案的是非曲直的情況中，對問題有先入為主的有利或不利的看法。偏私有兩種：第一種是實質偏私，一經證明，會令具有行使司法職權的人喪失有關的資格；第二種是表面上的偏私，即考慮到有關的情況，確實有可能某行使司法職權的人有偏私，也就是說，該人可能（或已經），對由他考慮訴訟一方的案件，不公平地存有有利或不利的看法：R v Gough [1993] AC 646；R v Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139（英國上訴法院）；Panel on Takeovers and Mergers v Cheng Kai Man William [1995] 3 HKC 517, 2 HKLR 302 （樞密院）；Cheung Francis & Anor v Insider Dealing Tribunal (No 2) [2000] 1 HKC 437, 2 HKLRP 113 （上訴法庭）；Bahadur v Secretary for Security [2000] 2 HKC 486（上訴法庭）。偏私指偏離法律規定掌管司法職權的人（例如仲裁人）所須秉持的公正不阿的司法標準：Franklin & Ors v Minister of Town & County Planning [1947] 2 All ER 289（上議院）。如決策人對決策的結果有財務或金錢上的利益，則會被懷疑存有偏私。Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1882) 3 HL Cas 759（上議院）。如決策人的決策會導致提升他和訴訟的一方牽涉的訴訟因由，也可按此進行偏私的查訊：R v Bow Street Magistrates ex p Pinochet (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119（上議院）。如任何人身為指控人或檢控人，參與有關他作出檢控的檢控決策，則也可能有偏私：Taylor v National Union of Seamen [1967] 1 WLR 532；[1967] 1 All ER 767, 1 WLR 532；R v Barnsley Metropolitan District Council ex p Hook [1976] 3 All ER 452，1 WLR 1052（英國上訴法院）；R v Lift Contractors’ Disciolinary Board ex p Otis Elevator Co (HK) Ltd (1995) 5 HKPLR 78（上訴法庭）。另見Bias rule; Procedural fairness。 法庭及法律程序 - 損害。偏私的驗證是在芵國通用的驗證，即決策者一方是否有實在偏私的可能性：R v Gough [1993] AC 646, Panel on Takeovers and Mergers & Anor v Cheng Kai Man [1995] 3 HKC 517, 2 HKLR 302 （樞密院）; Bahadur v Security for Security [2000] 2 HKLRD 113。根據Webb & Anor v R (1993 - 1994) 181 CLR 41 一案確立的澳洲驗證並不適用於香港：Bahadur v Security for Security, 見上文。採取干涉者的角色的主審法官或裁判官可令致審訊不公，因而導致有關的定罪判決不公平或不能令人信納。無需證明有關法官或裁判官的實際偏私是有關當局確立的其中一項觀點。如憑藉其行為他會被已獲知悉有關事宜的旁聽者視為偏向控方的行為，則已足夠。審理上訴的法院所需考慮的最終問題是，有關法官或裁判官的行為是否已導致獲知悉有關事宜的訟案旁聽者認為敗訴的一方沒有得到公平的審訴：R v Yeung Mau Lam [1991] 2 HKLR 468 （上訴法庭）; Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 All ER 155, 2 QB 55 （芵國上訴法院）。另見 Judicial notice; Withdrawal of juror。n. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。