on the right to appeal for cause and a transcript of the jury selection process. In the document submitted, Esson CJ found evidence to support the claim that “native people historically have been and continue to be the subject of bias and prejudice which, in some respects, have become more evident and widespread in recent years as a result of tensions created by developments in areas such as land claims and fishing rights”. , Esson CJ believed that even if a juror had a prejudice against a person of Aboriginal descent, this would not lead to bias because they would set it aside during the trial and focus solely on the facts. He concluded his decision with a cost-benefit analysis in which he said that “allowing challenges for cause based on racial bias in the community would far outweigh the purported benefit of seemingly fairer trials.” Esson CJ's final conclusion is misleading because it ignores the hard facts and places too much faith in potential jurors. In any situation, the racial biases that someone holds will not simply disappear just because they are in a courtroom. Someone's discriminatory thoughts are ingrained, so contesting the case was necessary to remove bias from the trial and prevent Williams from receiving an unfair punishment.