The County Court refused a mid-trial recusal application, holding that none of seven alleged instances of judicial intervention — including raising the risk of improper incriminating conduct reasoning, alerting the prosecution to s 32 Evidence Act memory-refreshing provisions, querying the potential tender consequences of a call for documents, suggesting a timeline exhibit, raising s 87 Evidence Act admissions provisions, and questioning a defence expert's qualifications — individually or in combination satisfied the three-step QYFM test for apprehended bias. The Court held that judicial interventions directed at ensuring trial fairness and preventing miscarriage of justice, including alerting parties to evidentiary risks and statutory provisions they had overlooked, would be viewed by the fair-minded lay observer as reinforcing rather than undermining impartiality. The Court also confirmed that an adverse ruling on a legal question does not establish or contribute to apprehended bias.
The full text is available to signed-in members.