Tessa v DPP (Cth)

[2022] VSCA 61

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judges
2. › Bias
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Test for disqualification
5. › Fair-minded lay observer
6. › Whether trial judge's conduct of hearings demonstrated bias against unrepresented accused
7. › Whether conflict of interest inherited from recused judge
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Bias
3. › Actual bias
4. › Unrepresented defendant
5. › Whether judge's management of difficult unrepresented accused constituted actual bias
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Trial judge's authority
3. › Courtroom management
4. › Whether unrepresented accused may sit at Bar table
5. › Whether mask requirements and security measures within judge's discretion
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Interlocutory appeals
4. › Certification under s 295(3)
5. › Application to review refusal to certify
6. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 295(3), 296(1)

Quick Take

The administrative allocation of a case by a judge who subsequently identifies a conflict of interest does not transmit that conflict to the judge to whom the case is allocated. A trial judge's courtroom management decisions — including whether an unrepresented accused sits at the Bar table or in the dock, and mask-wearing requirements — are wholly within the judge's discretion and do not give rise to apprehended bias. An unrepresented accused's self-represented status does not give a 'free pass to misbehave or treat the judge with disrespect or contempt', and firm management of such behaviour does not constitute bias.