Steadman-Byrne v Amjad & Ors

A judge may form provisional views as evidence unfolds and may disclose them to assist case management. A judge may indicate that one side’s evidence presently appears weak. The boundary is crossed when the judge conveys a firm view about one party’s credibility before hearing evidence intended to challenge it. The test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, aware of all relevant circumstances, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Apparent bias may arise from a prematurely closed mind, even without actual prejudice. A private discussion with counsel is assessed in the same way as words spoken in open court.

Three claimants succeeded in a personal injury action arising from a low-velocity motor collision before Manchester County Court District Judge Jones. The dispute concerned whether all three claimants had been in the vehicle. After hearing the claimants’ evidence but before hearing the defendant’s evidence, the judge told counsel that he believed the claimants and could not see how the defendant could win. He also made comments about the defendant’s police background.

The judge later found for all three claimants and ordered payment of their costs. The defendant appealed, alleging apparent bias. The central issue was whether the judge’s remarks conveyed a prematurely concluded view adverse to the defendant.

The appeal was allowed. The court held that the district judge’s remarks created an inescapable appearance that his mind was closed against the defendant before the defendant had given evidence. The parties had compromised the action while the appeal was adjourned, so no remission was required. The order was that the appeal be allowed, with no order as to costs.

1. The test for ostensible bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered all the relevant circumstances, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased. In this context, bias means the premature formation of a concluded view adverse to one party.
2. A judge may properly begin forming views about evidence as it is given and may communicate a provisional view to assist the parties. This may include indicating, as illustrated by [2002] EWHC 1984 (Ch), that the judge presently considers one party’s evidence unpersuasive. Active case management under CPR 1.4 may include exploring settlement or narrowing issues. The court approved the caution in (2006) UKEAT S/0065/05/RN: any such indication must leave clear that the judge’s mind remains open and that the view is provisional.
3. The district judge went beyond that permissible limit. Before hearing the defendant, he said that he believed the claimants, could not see how the defendant could win, and attributed the defendant’s position to a characteristic attitude associated with police officers. Those remarks suggested that the defendant would not be believed if he contradicted the claimants. The possibility that the judge had acted with good motives, or that the defendant might in fact be mistaken, did not cure the appearance of a premature credibility conclusion.
4. Remarks made privately in chambers to counsel are subject to the same test as remarks made in open court. Counsel could not keep the remarks from their clients.
5. The court stressed that an apparent manifestation of bias should ordinarily be raised when it occurs. Appellate courts generally view complaints made only after a party has taken its chance on the outcome unfavourably. That waiver issue was not pursued or decided in this appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal on the apparent-bias ground. The parties agreed that the action need not be remitted because it had been compromised during the adjourned appeal. No order as to appeal costs.
• Manchester County Court: District Judge Jones gave judgment on 14 July 2006 for all three claimants following a trial, and ordered the defendant or insurers to pay their costs.