Clifton v Duong

[2019] ACTCA 22

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Ex parte communication between judge and party
4. › Email communication with prosecutors without copying defence counsel
5. › Whether communication concerned administrative or substantive matter
6. › Whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend bias
7. › Whether failure to object amounts to waiver
1. Appeal
2. › Nature of appeal
3. › Appeal from appellate decision
4. › Whether appellant confined to identifying error in court below
5. › Whether fresh attack on original decision permitted
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Self-defence
4. › Two-limb test in Zecevic v DPP
5. › Whether verdict unreasonable
6. › Whether open to trier of fact to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that self-defence negated
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24

Quick Take

Ex parte email communications between a judge's chambers and one party concerning administrative matters such as accessing exhibits do not give rise to apprehended bias where the communications do not concern substantive issues. A legally represented party who becomes aware of such communications and fails to object in a timely manner waives the right to complain of apprehended bias on appeal. An appeal from an appellate decision should not be used to mount a fresh attack on the factual findings of the original tribunal.