Vic v Psaila & Anor; Vic v Lamb

[1999] VSCA 193

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judges
2. › Bias
3. › Ostensible bias
4. › Reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality
5. › Judge's comments about party's litigation conduct and government policy
6. › Whether comments directed to issues at trial or collateral matters
7. › Whether reiteration of comments in second trial strengthened apprehension
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Bias
3. › Ostensible bias
4. › Evidence relevant to assessment
5. › Whether statements made by judge in subsequent proceedings may be relied upon to assess bias in earlier proceedings
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Bias
3. › Ostensible bias
4. › Expression of strong opinions by judge
5. › Whether preconceived opinions or their expression constitute disqualifying bias
6. › Distinction between impropriety and perceived bias
1. Juries
2. › Order directing trial without jury
3. › Discretion under County Court Rules r 47.02(3)
4. › Relevant considerations
5. › Whether standard of care of 12-year-old too complex for jury
6. › Whether additional cost of jury trial sufficient ground
7. › Whether danger of unsatisfactory verdict

Quick Take

A judge's intemperate comments about government policy or a party's litigation conduct do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias where the comments are directed to matters collateral to the issues at trial and a fair-minded observer would not apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the merits. Subsequent statements by a judge in other proceedings may be relied upon to confirm or dispel an apprehension of bias arising from earlier statements. The standard of care of a 12-year-old child is not too complex for a jury, and additional cost of a jury trial alone is insufficient to warrant dispensing with a jury under r 47.02(3).