Regina v CUR24 [2011] NSWDC 177

Regina v CUR24 [2011] NSWDC 177

The application was refused because the judge had not said or done anything indicating prejudgment of any litigation involving CUR24; no remarks were made about CUR24, his sentencing, his trial or the appeal, and no lay observer could reasonably apprehend bias against CUR24 from the alleged social-function conversation. The application was also refused because it was made too long after the 15 March 2011 morning tea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application to Disqualify Judge for Apprehended Bias / Interlocutory Application Before Sentencing and Further Trials
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['apprehended Bias' 'child Sex Offences' 'sentencing' 'further Trials']
['criminal Law' 'judicial Disqualification'] ['apprehended Bias' 'child Sex Offences' 'sentencing' 'further Trials']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application to Disqualify Judge for Apprehended Bias / Interlocutory Application Before Sentencing and Further Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should disqualify himself from sentencing CUR24 and conducting further trials because a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend bias.' 'Whether remarks allegedly made at a social function supported a reasonable apprehension that the judge had prejudged CUR24 or child sex offenders generally.' 'Whether the delay of about six months in bringing the application justified refusal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the judge had not said or done anything indicating prejudgment of any litigation involving CUR24; no remarks were made about CUR24, his sentencing, his trial or the appeal, and no lay observer could reasonably apprehend bias against CUR24 from the alleged social-function conversation. The application was also refused because it was made too long after the 15 March 2011 morning tea.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application refused.' 'No mention is to be made of the identity of the applicant.' 'The media may have access to the affidavit of Mr Walsh.' 'There is to be no publication of the names of any judges mentioned in the affidavit, other than Judge Michael Finnane QC.']