Not On Record REWIND | Can a Judge Truly Be Impartial?

Not On Record REWIND | Can a Judge Truly Be Impartial? Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord In this Not On Record REWIND, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison dig into a fascinating Canadian court decision asking a deceptively simple question: can a judge ever truly be impartial? Using R. v. Fraser, 2023 NSSC 45, they examine a Crown appeal of an acquittal based on alleged judicial bias, reasonable apprehension of bias, judicial impartiality, recusal motions, and public confidence in the justice system. The discussion breaks down how Canadian courts assess whether a judge crossed the line, why proving actual bias is so difficult, and how courtroom case management can sometimes look alarming to outsiders while still falling short of legal bias. The episode also explores the difference between actual bias and reasonable apprehension of bias, the presumption of judicial impartiality, why appellate courts give deference to trial judges, and how courtroom demeanour, witness credibility, and live evidence can never be fully captured by a transcript alone. Joseph and Diana also widen the lens to discuss whether true impartiality is even possible, referencing Bertha Wilson, R. v. Lavallee, battered woman syndrome, judicial philosophy, and the tension between human experience and the duty to decide cases fairly. Along the way, they reflect on old-school courtroom culture, judicial civility, criminal harassment trials, wrongful conviction concerns, sexual assault and domestic violence prosecutions, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the Canadian criminal justice system. This episode is essential viewing for anyone interested in Canadian law, criminal trials, judicial conduct, Crown appeals, recusal applications, courtroom fairness, wrongful convictions, legal ethics, and how judges actually make decisions.