R v Pratten (No 13) [2014] NSWSC 1783

R v Pratten (No 13) [2014] NSWSC 1783

The sentencing findings relied on by the CDPP did not depend on adverse credit findings or contested witness reliability, but on inferences from largely uncontested evidence. Nothing in those findings suggested that Rothman J would fail to bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the re-trial or to any later sentencing exercise. Any alleged error in future findings would be a matter for appeal, not a basis for disqualification or non-allocation. The principles concerning apprehended bias by pre-judgment were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution; Motion Concerning Allocation of Trial Judge for Re Trial / Before Re Trial After Convictions Were Quashed and a New Trial Ordered
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'pre Judgment' 'allocation of Trial Judge' 're Trial After Appeal']
['courts and Judges' 'criminal Procedure'] ['apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'pre Judgment' 'allocation of Trial Judge' 're Trial After Appeal']

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 Prosecution; Motion Concerning Allocation of Trial Judge for Re Trial / Before Re Trial After Convictions Were Quashed and a New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether apprehended bias by way of pre-judgment arose from findings made in the sentencing remarks after the first trial.' 'Whether the re-trial should not be allocated to the judge who presided over the first trial and imposed sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing findings relied on by the CDPP did not depend on adverse credit findings or contested witness reliability, but on inferences from largely uncontested evidence. Nothing in those findings suggested that Rothman J would fail to bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the re-trial or to any later sentencing exercise. Any alleged error in future findings would be a matter for appeal, not a basis for disqualification or non-allocation. The principles concerning apprehended bias by pre-judgment were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion that the trial judge assigned for the re-trial be a judge of the Court other than Rothman J was dismissed.']