ABSTRACT The rule against bias is a central tenet of English law and it also impacts on collegiate courts which typically exercise appellate/review jurisdictions over their professional or student members. This is true of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) which has established the adjudicatory bodies to enforce its regulatory framework and has vested the procedure of fair trials upon the Council of the Inns of Court (‘COIC’) which is responsible for appointing the Disciplinary Tribunal panels that conduct hearings for professional misconduct. The COIC has been exposed for ‘irregularities’ in the findings of guilt against barristers who have been adjudged by non-qualified judges. In R (on the application of Mehey & Ors) v Visitors to the Inns of Court and Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1630, the Court of Appeal ruled that a disciplinary tribunal or a panel of visitors appointed from barristers or lay representatives outside its pool of enrolled judges would still ensure independence and guarantee freedom from outside pressure. The impugned tribunal members who were not entitled to sit nevertheless had authority to act as de facto judges. This part of the ruling reinforces the regulatory bodies inherent power to appoint its own tribunal to adjudicate and it needs a more rigorous application of natural justice principle on the part of the BSB.

中文翻译：

---

大律师、律师标准委员会以及英格兰和威尔士任命纪律法庭的结构性偏见

摘要 反偏见规则是英国法律的核心原则，它也会影响通常对其专业成员或学生成员行使上诉/审查管辖权的大学法院。律师标准委员会 (BSB) 也是如此，该委员会建立了裁决机构以执行其监管框架，并将公平审判程序赋予法院委员会 (“COIC”)，后者负责任命纪律处分员为专业不当行为举行听证会的法庭小组。COIC 因对由不合格法官裁定的大律师有罪的调查结果而被曝光。在 R（关于 Mehey & Ors 的申请）诉法院和奥尔斯旅馆的访客 [2014] EWCA Civ 1630 中，上诉法院裁定，纪律审裁处或由大律师或非其登记法官名单外的非专业代表任命的访客小组仍将确保独立性并保证不受外界压力的影响。然而，无权出庭的受到指责的法庭成员有权担任事实上的法官。裁决的这一部分加强了监管机构任命自己的法庭进行裁决的固有权力，并且需要 BSB 更严格地应用自然正义原则。