Facts
- Spain sought the extradition of former Chilean head of state Augusto Pinochet Ugarte for alleged torture and related crimes; Pinochet was arrested in London on UK warrants reflecting Spanish charges.
- The Divisional Court held Pinochet was immune as a former head of state and ordered his release.
- In an earlier House of Lords decision (Pinochet (No. 1)), a 3–2 majority reversed and held Pinochet was not immune for the relevant allegations.
- Amnesty International was permitted to intervene in Pinochet (No. 1) and made submissions supporting extradition and opposing immunity.
- After judgment but before final orders were completed, it emerged that Lord Hoffmann—one of the law lords in the majority—was an unpaid director (and chair) of Amnesty International Charity Ltd, closely associated with Amnesty International.
- Pinochet applied to set aside the Pinochet (No. 1) decision on the ground that Lord Hoffmann’s connection created bias or an appearance of bias.
Issues
- Whether a judge is automatically disqualified for apparent bias when the judge has an undisclosed leadership role in an organization that intervenes in the case and has a relevant interest in the outcome.
- If such disqualification exists, whether the prior appellate judgment must be set aside and the appeal reheard by a properly constituted panel.
Decision
- The House of Lords held that Lord Hoffmann was automatically disqualified from sitting in Pinochet (No. 1) due to his connection with Amnesty International, an active intervener with a relevant interest in the litigation.
- The House set aside Pinochet (No. 1) notwithstanding the absence of evidence of actual bias.
- The House ordered that the appeal be reheard by a differently constituted panel without any relevant connection to the intervener.
Legal Principles
- The rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) requires automatic disqualification where a judge has a relevant interest that makes the judge effectively a participant in the cause; proof of actual bias is unnecessary.
- Automatic disqualification is not limited to pecuniary or proprietary interests; sufficiently close non-financial institutional ties to a party or active intervener can trigger the rule.
- Where a final appellate decision is rendered by an improperly constituted tribunal due to automatic disqualification, the court has inherent authority to treat the decision as invalid and set it aside to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Conclusion
The House of Lords vacated its earlier Pinochet ruling because a participating law lord’s undisclosed leadership connection to an intervening organization created an appearance of bias requiring automatic disqualification, making the prior decision invalid and necessitating a rehearing.