Public Prosecutions, The Attorney General Civil Appeals No. 34 and 35 of 2009, CA 045/2009 at Paragraph 72: A logical connection must be established between the matters which it is being alleged may give rise to lack of impartiality or the perception thereof, and the decision that it is contended may be affected. See for example the judgment of the Honourable Archie JA in Panday v Virgil citing Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy at page 7 The case of Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 lays down a three-step test: • First, one must identify what it is said might lead a judicial officer to decide a case otherwise than strictly on its merits; • Second, a logical connection between the matter/s and the feared deviation from impartiality has to be articulated; • Third, an assessment must be made whether a fair-minded observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the case would not be decided impartially. As indicated previously the second step highlighted is a facet of the first step. Whether described as a two-step or three-step test is therefore a matter of semantics. 70. It is not the function of this court, dealing solely with allegations of apparent bias, to make findings of fact. However, if the fair minded and informed observer were to conclude that there were communications between the CJ and the HDC after the election, despite no documented material to this effect, such observer would need to apprehend a real possibility of bias on the part of the CJ, arising from such communications, in relation to the election petitions before him. The same would apply to any communications with the HDC before the election. 71. The way in which such connection is alleged to arise is articulated in paragraphs 47-49 of the applicant’s affidavit26. In counsel’s speaking note he 26 See paragraph 40 above. 39