Williams v WA

[2021] WASCA 33

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law and Sentencing
2. › Sentencing
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Prejudgment of factual issues
6. › Whether sentencing judge's response to agreed statement of facts gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias
7. › Whether sentencing process miscarried
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Rule against prejudgment
5. › Judge expressing clear views on factual issues prior to trial of issues
6. › Whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend judge might not bring impartial mind to resolution of factual issues
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › Co-conspirator's rule
4. › Exception to rule against hearsay
5. › Whether reasonable evidence of accused's participation in conspiracy required at or before time of co-conspirator's statement
6. › Temporal requirement for participation

Quick Take

A sentencing judge who persistently characterises agreed facts in emphatic and pejorative terms (such as 'false', 'a lie', 'misleading and deceptive', or describing sentencing on that basis as being 'party to a fraud') may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias that cannot be cured by later assurances of impartiality. For the co-conspirator's rule, there must be reasonable evidence of the accused's participation in the conspiracy at or before the time the co-conspirator's statement was made, and that evidence must be found independently of the co-conspirator's statement itself.