A judge's refusal to listen to argument in support of a recusal application, or any application of substance, is likely to constitute error justifying appellate intervention on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias. However, where the transcript reveals a lack of understanding between counsel and judge rather than a refusal to hear argument, no apprehension of bias arises. The prevailing view remains that a refusal to recuse does not itself constitute an interlocutory judgment or order amenable to appeal under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, though this was not definitively resolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.