R v Kay; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)

[2016] QCA 269

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Procedure
4. › Case stated and reference of question of law
5. › Reference under s 668A Criminal Code (Qld)
6. › Whether ruling on recusal application is direction or ruling as to conduct of trial
7. › Whether point of law of general application and importance
8. › Criminal Code (Qld), ss 590AA, 668A, 669A
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judges
3. › Recusal
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Duty to give reasons for refusing recusal application
6. › Whether reasons must be sufficient for fair-minded lay observer to appreciate absence of reasonable apprehension of bias
7. › Content of duty to give reasons varies with circumstances
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Content and extent of duty
5. › Whether duty applies to every interlocutory decision
6. › Whether adequacy of reasons depends on circumstances of the case

Quick Take

A judge who refuses a recusal application is not required in every case to give reasons sufficient for a fair-minded lay observer to appreciate why that observer could not reasonably apprehend bias. The content and detail of reasons required varies according to the circumstances. However, where a recusal application is based on rational grounds, reasons should be given, and the duty to give reasons is not contingent on a party requesting them. A ruling on a recusal application constitutes a ruling as to the conduct of the trial for the purposes of s 590AA and s 668A of the Criminal Code (Qld).