## Facts

- Allegations of bias arose against an auditor investigating Westminster City Council.
- The council’s leader and deputy initiated a plan to sell council houses in marginal wards, motivated by the belief that homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative than council tenants.
- The plan was executed under section 32 of the Housing Act 1985.
- An auditor launched an official inquiry into the legality of the council's actions.
- During the investigation, the auditor publicly disclosed his provisional findings against the councillors on a BBC interview, which prompted concerns regarding his impartiality.
- The councillors appealed, asserting that the auditor’s public comments before completing his investigation suggested bias, thus compromising the integrity of the inquiry and violating the right to a fair hearing under Article 6(1) ECHR.

## Issues

1. Whether the auditor’s public disclosure of provisional findings before concluding the investigation gave rise to apparent bias or predetermination.
2. Whether a fair-minded and informed observer would consider there was a real possibility of bias, thereby undermining the requirement for procedural fairness and impartiality.
3. Whether the process satisfied the requirements of a fair hearing under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the auditor’s actions did not demonstrate actual bias, nor did they give rise to a real possibility of bias in the eyes of a fair-minded and informed observer.
- The court determined the auditor had clarified that his findings were provisional and not final, which a reasonable observer would interpret as retaining impartiality.
- Public confidence in administrative decisions is maintained by ensuring not just actual, but also apparent impartiality; this appearance was not breached in the present case.
- The appeals by the councillors were dismissed, affirming the integrity of the auditor’s investigation and the fairness of the proceedings under Article 6(1) ECHR.

## Legal Principles

- The principle of procedural fairness requires both the reality and the appearance of impartiality in public decision-making.
- The “fair-minded and informed observer” test was established to determine whether there is a real possibility of bias, shifting the assessment from subjective suspicion to an objective standard.
- Apparent bias is assessed not by actual prejudice, but by whether a reasonable, informed observer perceives a real risk of bias.
- The requirements of fairness and procedural justice are context-dependent, varying according to the circumstances and the nature of the decision-making body.

## Conclusion

Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 clarified the standard for apparent bias in UK administrative law by introducing the fair-minded and informed observer test, reinforcing the necessity for both actual and perceived impartiality and setting an objective method for assessing bias and procedural fairness.