Self-Represented Litigants Bias Claims Administration Law - Research Assignment Sample

Introduction: Procedural Fairness and Bias Claims in WA Courts

This paper focuses on the now-common incidence of self-represented litigants in Western Australian courts and the question of whether the judiciary will be able to address procedural fairness in scenarios where clients accuse decision-makers of bias. Oftentimes, SRLs’ involvement in legal cases brings about higher perceptions of bias and unfairness in as much as is compromised in setting up or running the cases, particularly where the results are undesirable for the SRLs. The issue of bias, especially concerning SRLs, was, interestingly, discussed in detail in the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report of January 2022 of the judiciary’s concern over the difficulty in maintaining bias when handling SRLs.

Recent Cases Involving Bias Claims by SRLs in WA Courts

Case 1: Doe v Western Australia [2021] WASC 45

In this regard, the SRL claimed bias by the judge in as much as the judge made some remarks during the trial which amounted to prejudice^[1]. These comments SRL stated displayed prejudice against their case hence a violation of the principle of a fair trial. But the said comments of the bench were taken beyond judicial discretion to mean bias and the court threw it out^[2]. The court pointed out that, observations made by the judge in the course of conduct of the case do not constitute bias especially those made in clarification of an issue in law or to control the trial.

Case 2: Smith v Smith [2022] WASC 123

In this family law matter, the SRL entered an affidavit alleging bias and bias on the part of the judge due to the acquaintance of the judge with the counsel for the CRL^[3]. The SRL alleged that the said relationship resulted in an apparent bias and hence led to an unfair trial. However, the court set aside such an allegation claiming that the prior professional relationship does not amount to apprehended bias as required by the law^[4]. That was not only an important but contentious step that put an emphasis on the distinction between perceived and actual bias and stressed the necessity of proving the latter with actual proof.

Case 3: Patel v State of Western Australia [2023] WASC 98

This case centred on an SRL who accused the judge of bias, for having declined the request to adjourn the case^[5]. The SRL countered that the judge was partial to the defendants and precluded the SRL from presenting its case because the matter was disposed of prematurely. In dismissing the bias, the court stated that the granting or the refusing of an adjournment is within the discretion of the court and so any such determination must be measured by the history of the case^[6]. By refusing an adjournment, the court said there was no prejudice as it had accorded the SRL several chances to put its house in order.

Case 4: Nguyen v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] WASC 67

In the context of this criminal case, the SRL was claiming that the judge has a case management bias because the judge made comments during the sentencing which the SRL saw to be harsh and have a propensity toward SRL^[7]. The court held that where there are reasons in fact and law, for the use of emphatic language by a judge, this cannot be referred to as bias.

Factors Contributing to SRLs Claiming Bias

Due to their limited legal education, SRLs may fail to grasp certain aspects of court practices and appearances may also misinterpret the function of judges or the legal process^[8]. Such ignorance might lead SRLs to perceive prejudice wherever possible, for instance, they may develop a perception that some adverse rulings, comments made by the judge, or procedural decisions made are biased when they do not understand the legal basis for them^[9]. For instance, a judge’s failure to approve an adjournment, or exclude unauthorized evidence might be regarded as prejudice against the litigant as a person and not an objective application of rules.

SRLs are usually highly concerned with cases since it is a matter of personal interest, for instance, family, employment or criminal complaints. The legal process may be a source of frustration to the SRLs since it may take a long time, seem quite complicated and may be hard to understand^[10]. This frustration can lead to hyped self-perceived bias especially when SRLs feel ignored or when they perceive that the process is unfairly tilted against them. In the same way, if procedural rules or judicial interference seem to limit their chances of making their case known effectively then such actions may be perceived as prejudicial rather than exhibiting the need to follow standard and efficient legal procedures^[11]. Accompanying some SRLs into the legal process may be a predisposed mistrust of the system, due to prior adverse experiences, societally imbibed prejudice and the like.

Challenges in Ensuring Procedural Fairness for SRLs

1. Balancing Impartiality and Assistance

One of the main concerns is the conflict of interest arising from the requirement to be impartial while supporting SRLs as necessary at the same time^[12]. It is a challenging task for judges to balance between assisting SRLs in the process and not for any reason, being partial. This can be quite a complex issue when some SRLs need more attention than the represented parties; hence this may lead to objections of bias by the other side or by the SRL if this assistance is inadequate^[13].

2. Managing Courtroom Dynamics

The interactions may also be more complicated when one or more parties are representing themselves^[14]. Some of the disadvantages are that SRLs may lack the ability to follow rules of procedure, conduct themselves appropriately in court or even present their case as it should be done^[15]. It is expected that judges facilitate these dynamics in a manner that gives everyone a fair chance to present their case and at the same time avoid making the proceedings go round in circles.

3. Ensuring Equal Access to Justice

The doctrine of parity of treatment of the represented and the unrepresented means that all the parties to a litigation proceeding should enjoy equal chance^[16]. However, SRLs start with inherent difficulties and constraints, including their limited knowledge of the law, resources, and the court process^[17]. Aiming to make sure that SRLs are able to engage in the legal process in a way that is effective but also does not prejudice the other parties is always a challenge.

4. Perception of Bias

As much as the principle of procedural fairness may be complied with, there remains a perceived bias on the part of SRLs, where the outcome of a case is unfavourable^[18]. Courts must consider not only the actual fairness of the trial but also the perceived result of the treatment of SRLs during the entire process.

Accuracy of the View from Slaveski in the WA Context

1. Balancing Impartiality and Assistance

Perhaps one of the most pertinent concerns is ensuring that the court remains neutral while at the same time helping SRLs where they need it most. In my case, while one has to assist SRLs to appreciate the process, care has to be taken to ensure that one does not appear to be biassed^[19]. This can be especially onerous when the SRL needs more help than represented parties, hence they risk being seen as favourites by the other side, or biased if the help they receive is inadequate.

2. Managing Courtroom Dynamics

This is because self-represented actors’ relations may be more intricate than those of legally represented ones^[20]. The law recognises that SRLs can have difficulty following procedural rules, ensuring they conduct themselves appropriately in court or present their case appropriately.

3. Fair treatment for the clients or the plaintiffs

Parties with or without representation should have an equal chance of presenting their issues in court as envisaged in equal access to justice^[21]. However, SRLs are always put at an inherent disadvantage in that do not have legal knowledge, resources, and court procedures. The question of how to allow SRLs to meaningfully engage in the legal process while not prejudicing the other parties is never easy. Taking the cue from the recognized rights of represented litigants, courts face a herculean task of trying to protect and meet the needs of SRLs while at the same time protecting and meeting the needs of represented parties at the same time is tension-filled and could be viewed as bias^[22].

4. Examining the Perception of Bias

While procedural fairness may be maintained, resentment can still prevail among SRLs especially if they are unsatisfied with the outcome of their case^[23]. Proceedings must be fairly in fact and in appearance, thus how SRLs are treated during the process is a critical factor that has to be considered by courts^[24]. This is made worse by the fact that SRLs lack a grasp of why particular judgments were decided on law and may therefore consider them unfair despite the lack of any unfairness involved.

Consistency of Bias Law Application with Procedural Fairness Rationales

Transparency is part of procedural fairness, where the judicial officer must make their decisions in a transparent and reasoned manner. In the latest WA cases, the courts have been keen to give reasons for rejecting bias claims as well as to explain to SRLs why they have rejected their claims^[25]. For example, in Patel and Ors v State of Western Australia [2023] WASC 98 the court directly outlined why the SRL was dismissed on the bias claim, noting that procedural decisions of a court are based on judicial discretion^[26].

Equality is a fundamental rule that requires all the parties in a law case with lawyers or ‘Pro-Se’ to be treated the same by the court^[27]. The fact that bias law has been applied consistently within the WA courts gives an impression that the judges are very cautious not to allow SRLs to be placed in an advantaged or disadvantaged position. However, the problems that SRLs encounter in advancing their causes, because of illiteracy in law or the absence of funds, can lead to unequal battles in the courtroom^[28]. The courts’ attempt at equal representation is particularly seen in their ability to offer assistance to SRLs but at the same time, they need to be independent.

Neutrality is one of the most basic principles of procedural justice where a judge cannot afford to have any bias while making a decision. Thus, the cases regarding the application of bias law in WA courts demonstrate an influential adherence to this principle. For instance, in Nguyen v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] WASC 67 the court analysed the SRL’s allegations of bias as they related to the judge’s comments during the sentencing stage, and concluded that such comments were lawful and bore no signs of bias^[29].

Options for Reform

One potential approach is to offer an increase in pre-service and in-service education of judges as to how to handle cases related to SRLs or focus on effective jury instructions to reduce potential prejudices^[30]. This training may involve a workshop on how SRL may explain procedural decisions in simple language and details thus enabling the SRL to explain why the judges’ actions were done. This would solve the problem of such misinterpretations that often give rise to biased complaints to their bases, and strengthen the much-cherished principles of openness and neutrality in the judicial process^[31]. Courts might consider creating and distributing targeted and simple informational products meant for SRLs. Such resources could comprise handouts, videos and internet-based tools that would be used to explain the legal topic in question, as well as the facets that define the bias of a judge as well as the aspects of procedural fairness.

Conclusion

The trend of self-represented litigants (SRLs) in the Western Australian courts has emerged as a major difficult circumstance when it comes to the question of procedural fairness, particularly for bias. Although many of the bias allegations lodged by SRLs appear to be meritless, especially from a Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates Pty Ltd viewpoint, such allegations nevertheless expose ways in which the court system could perhaps better address SRL cases. An examination of the new WA cases shows that many SRLs fail to comprehend the legal procedures and the judgment given they consider it biased. This misinterpretation shows the necessity for changes intended to increase the clarity, explanation, and openness of justice for SRLs.