Several artworks that depict the Lady of Justice statue exist in different forms, including sculptures, paintings, metal status, and coats of arms. These artworks are found in courthouses almost in all parts of the world from South America and Europe to North America and the Middle East. These statuses are also found in legal, educational institutions and law offices where the Lady of Justice holds a sword, scales of justice, and perhaps blindfold. As the name suggests, the Lady of Justice is a symbol of fairness, while the blindfold represents impartiality and equality (Kuijer, 2013). However, this is not always the case because some instances of bias are witnessed in courts across the world. Australia is not an exception because there are a few instances that demonstrate partiality and unfairness in rulings or proceedings. Goddess Justitia wears a blindfold that is symbolic of equality, but the extent of its reflection in actual workings in Australian courts is questionable because of biases witnessed in some rulings and admission of emotions during practice.

Fair trial and hearing constitute equality, the right to a public hearing, and independent and impartial judgment. However, this has not been entirely the case in Australian courts because of several reasons. First, research conducted in 2016 revealed that Australian magistrates and judges admitted to experiencing strong personal emotions and feelings towards cases they preside over (Carbonell, 2016). A study conducted by Flinders University Judicial Research led by Sharyn Roach Anleu indicated that over 90% of judicial officials and magistrates ranked fairness as the most crucial element to bring to the bench. The officers use specific strategies to prevent biases in their rulings, but they still struggle with emotions. The plan at hand is mostly evidence-based, whereby judicial officials depend primarily on the evidence presented to make rulings (Carbonell, 2016). During the interviews, some magistrates conceded personal reactions to individuals in court were unavoidable. Any time emotions come to play, impartiality cannot be granted, and this is a big issue in judgments not just in Australia but also in other parts of the world.

Besides, Networked Knowledge Law Report highlights Antoun v R(2006) HCA 2 case as an example of an instance of bias in case hearing. In this case, the Antouns were charged together for demanding money with threats from MS, with the intention to steal. The case was tried in the District Court NSW before Judge Christie (Moles & Sangha, 2006). The Antouns were found guilty and sentenced to prison. Their efforts to appeal bore no fruits because they were based on the conduct of the judge. Precisely, the basis of the appeal was that the behavior of the trial judge was not impartial and that a fair-minded observer would easily have realized. The bottom line is that the judge apprehended bias, which is said to have emerged from the way in which Judge Christie dealt with the submission of ‘no case to answer’ and his approach to handling a question of bail (Moles & Sangha, 2006). This is one of the many instances where judicial officials in Australia fail to obey the element of the blindfold on the Lady of Justice. It clearly shows that as much as the blindfold represents equality, the Australian courts do not entirely demonstrate impartiality in their proceedings and rulings.

Moreover, questions of biases have been mentioned on the Federal circuit court where Judge Sandy Street has continually ruled for Immigration in over 200 cases. Precisely, a statistical analysis shows that out of 256 immigrant applications made between January and June 2015, 254 were against Judge Street’s ruling (The Guardian Official, 2016). In other words, only two cases out of 256, which represent about 1% of the cases, were ruled in favor of immigration applicants. In such an instance, a fair-minded observer would definitely conclude that the judge was biased within that period. The entire public gave negative reviews and even went to give complaints on social media where they blamed the judiciary for their misfortunes. There is no way a judge would demonstrate such high levels of biases in rulings and still be allowed to hear more cases. In fact, he should not have gone beyond 100 cases before he was excused from hearing immigration matters. The judicial leadership failed big time by allowing Street to continue hearing cases that he obviously demonstrated biases (Robinson, 2015). It means that Street’s behavior was just ‘normal’ conduct to the jury leadership. In other words, the administration saw nothing wrong with what was happening until there was a public outcry that they decided to put Street on a judicial review. This is sufficient evidence to prove that even though blindfold on the Lady of Justice represents impartiality, there is no fairness in Australian courts.

Those in defense of the jury in relation to equality argue that Australian courts follow the court process to the latter. They argue that a fair trial is where the jury recognizes the interests of both the accused and the victim – defendant and plaintiff. This is what happens in Australian courts, where the judges often recognize both parties and give them time to make their submissions (Solovay, 2008). Once they make their submissions, the judges make judgments based on the evidence provided. When one mentions instances of apprehended bias and other forms of partialities, those who defend the jury argue that they are very few instances that cannot amount to 1% of the cases heard. Such an argument is wrong because besides the example above, there are several others cited as being ‘biased.’ Examples include but not limited to Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, R v Goussis [2007] VSC 171, Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507, and R v Branko Balic (No 2) (1994) 75 (Judicial College of Victoria, 2014). Surprisingly, some of the cases that have not been cited here date back to 1920s, which shows that the issue of biases in Australian courts is not new and that the problem has been consistent over time.

In conclusion, the Lady of Justice is a symbol of a fair trial in the whole world. Some of them have blindfolds on their faces that represent equality in rulings, but this is not always the case. In Australia, there are several instances where the courts have failed to demonstrate equality. It is unfortunate that one judge can give 99% of rulings in favor of an institution (Australia’s Migration Department) yet the judicial leadership fails to realize until there is a public outcry. It is even worse to note that the issue of biased rulings has been in existent since the 1920s and no permanent solution has been realized until today. Therefore, as much as the blindfold represents equality, there is no doubt that instances of biases in case hearings and rulings exist in Australian courts.

References

Carbonell, R. September 28, 2016). Judges admit to emotion in court but say they avoid bias in judgments. The Law Report; ABC News.

Judicial College of Victoria (2014). Judicial Bias. Judicial College of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VCPM/27528.htm

Kuijer, M. (2013). The blindfold of Lady Justice: Judicial independence and impartiality in light of the requirements of article 6 ECHR. Leiden: Recht University Press.

Moles, R. & Sangha, B. (2006). Networked Knowledge Law Reports Antoun v. R [2006] HCA 2; (2006) 224 ALR 51. Networked Knowledge. Retrieved from http://netk.net.au/Australia/Antoun.asp

Robinson, N. (September 9, 2015). Federal Circuit Court judge Alexander Street accused of bias after rejecting hundreds of migration cases. ABC News.

Solovay, S. (2008). Tipping the scales of justice: Fighting weight-based discrimination. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.

The Guardian. (February 29, 2016). Judge faces judicial review over ‘biased’ immigration rulings. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/29/judge-alexander-street-judicial-review-immigration-rulings