Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 does not validly prevent a party from tendering a judge's submission to a Parliamentary Committee in support of a recusal application on the ground of apprehended bias. Section 49 of the Constitution establishes only a defeasible default position for Commonwealth parliamentary privilege and does not entrench those privileges against Chapter III limitations. An intervener under s 78A of the Judiciary Act who actively opposes relief creates a justiciable controversy sufficient to found jurisdiction, even where the original parties agree. The Court left open the question whether Article 9 as a matter of construction (as distinct from constitutional invalidity) prevents such tender, but inclined to the view that it does not in many cases because the apprehended bias test is objective and does not require inquiry into the judge's state of mind.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.