R v JT; R v AF [2024] NSWDC 27

R v JT; R v AF [2024] NSWDC 27

The Crown failed to articulate any logical connection between the judge's prior sentencing of a co-offender, the provision of sentencing remarks, or case management emails, and any reasonable apprehension that the judge would not decide the sentences of JT and AF impartially and on their merits. Accordingly, there is no objective basis for recusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Recusal Application Prior to Sentencing
Outcome
Application for recusal refused.
Legal Topics
['apprehension of Bias' 'recusal Application' 'sentencing' 'parity Principle' 'case Management']
['criminal Law' 'judicial Procedure'] ['apprehension of Bias' 'recusal Application' 'sentencing' 'parity Principle' 'case Management']

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 / Ruling on Recusal Application Prior to Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should recuse himself from sentencing the co-offenders (JT and AF) on the ground of apprehended bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to articulate any logical connection between the judge's prior sentencing of a co-offender, the provision of sentencing remarks, or case management emails, and any reasonable apprehension that the judge would not decide the sentences of JT and AF impartially and on their merits. Accordingly, there is no objective basis for recusal.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']