“Judges must be independent and appear independent; undisclosed interests invalidate judicial decisions.”
Following the first Pinochet decision allowing extradition to proceed, it emerged that Lord Hoffmann had failed to disclose his connection to Amnesty International, which had intervened in the case. Pinochet's lawyers applied to set aside the judgment.
Whether Lord Hoffmann's undisclosed connection to Amnesty International constituted apparent bias requiring the earlier House of Lords decision to be set aside.
The House of Lords held that Lord Hoffmann's participation invalidated the earlier decision due to apparent bias. The previous judgment was set aside and the case reheard.
This case modernized and clarified the law on judicial bias, establishing that apparent bias can invalidate judicial decisions even without actual bias. It reinforced fundamental principles about judicial independence and the appearance of justice in high-profile cases.
You're reading the free summary of R v Bow Street Magistrates ex p Pinochet (No 2). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Bow Street Magistrates ex p Pinochet (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.