Denial by the PM 63. The fair minded and informed observer, not being unduly suspicious, would be slow to conclude that the denial by the PM, of the receipt or issue by him of WhatsApp messages with the CJ in relation to housing, yet allowed the possibility that the CJ may have sent such messages. The fair minded and informed observer could not be criticized as dismissing as fanciful such a suggestion and rejecting the mental gymnastics required to accept this possibility. This is especially so because he would have no information about whose phone it was on which these messages were supposedly seen, or how they came to be seen. He would be faced with a choice between accepting as true a WhatsApp message unseen by him, and of unidentified provenance, and the clear, emphatic, and repeated denial of at least their receipt, by a Prime Minister, in official correspondence to the Law Association. It would be difficult to contemplate an independent, fair minded, informed and rational observer preferring to accept the former over the latter. He would therefore rationally accept the first- hand denials of their existence in the circumstances outlined above, by the alleged parties thereto. Disclosure 64. It follows from the above that the fair minded and informed observer could not expect disclosure of communications, which apart from being denied by the parties thereto, he would not rationally expect to exist. Again it must be emphasised that this is not a conclusive finding as to the non-existence or otherwise of WhatsApp communications between the CJ and PM. This is, and only is, an application of the test applicable in relation to the apprehension of a real possibility of bias, in the circumstances as now known to the reasonable, fair–minded, and informed observer. 36