North (a Pseudonym) v The Queen

[2020] VSCA 1

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Interlocutory appeal
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Trial judge sentencing co-offender before trial of accused
5. › Remarks characterising accused's role in criminal enterprise
6. › Whether reasonable apprehension of bias arising from judge's remarks
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 295(3), 296(4), 297(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Pre-trial remarks by judge
4. › Judge commenting on strength of prosecution case
5. › Judge suggesting benefits of guilty plea
6. › Whether remarks give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Sentencing of co-offender by trial judge
4. › Findings as to role of accused not yet tried
5. › Whether sentencing findings engender apprehended bias
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Prosecution opening
4. › Requirements of summary of prosecution opening
5. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 182

Quick Take

A trial judge's sentencing findings as to the role of one offender vis-à-vis a co-accused do not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias for the purposes of the co-accused's trial. The hypothetical fair-minded lay observer would know that judges commonly revise views expressed when sentencing one offender in light of evidence at the trial of another. A prosecution opening under s 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) must be a summary and should not extend to a detailed rendition of every witness's expected evidence.