The Crown's motion for recusal on the ground of apprehended bias was dismissed, and the matter was listed for mention on 31 August 2026 with a view to sentencing in September 2026. The court held that the fair-minded lay observer would not find a logical connection between the judge's parliamentary submission criticising the DPP and ODPP officers (in relation to an unrelated 2GB disclosure incident), ex parte communications with counsel about that submission, and remarks made during recusal mentions on the one hand, and the judge's capacity to impartially determine the pending sentencing proceedings on the other. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not a 'party' to indictable proceedings in the District Court but rather a statutory functionary who commences and continues matters on behalf of the Crown, and where there is no evidence of the Director's actual involvement in the case, the second Ebner step requiring a logical connection between the identified factor and feared deviation from merit-based decision-making is not satisfied. The judgment leaves open whether a different result might follow in the matter of Baker, where counsel involved in the ex parte communications had made submissions the judge must revisit.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.