(vi) Fairness, although governed by separate considerations, should be considered in the context of all the relevant circumstances and not as an isolated principle. (vii) The question in this case was whether the conduct of the Chief Magistrate and the extraneous information might appear to the hypothetical observer to have diverted the Chief Magistrate from deciding the case on its merits. (viii) This Court had to decide whether, on an objective appraisal, the material facts gave rise to a legitimate fear that the Chief Magistrate might not have been impartial. If they did, the decision of the Chief Magistrate had to be set aside. (all emphasis added) 20. For a recent formulation in the UK see Bubbles and Wine Limited v Lusha [2018] EWCA Civ 468 at paragraphs 17 to 19. The law on apparent bias 17. The legal test for apparent bias is very well established. Mr Faure reminded us of the famous statements of Lord Hewart CJ in R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 at 259 that “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” and that “[n]othing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.” These principles remain as salutary and important as ever, but the way in which they are to be applied has been made more precise by the modern authorities. These establish that the test for apparent bias involves a two stage process. The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased: see Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357, paras 102-103. Bias means a prejudice against one party or its case for reasons unconnected with the legal or factual merits of the case: see Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1117, para 28; Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No2) [2008] EWCA Civ 117; [2008] 1 WLR 2528, para 53. 9