A1 & Anor v Betty King QC & Ors [1996] FCA 436

A1 & Anor v Betty King QC & Ors [1996] FCA 436

The application for disqualification was refused because the legal issue considered in the previous advice as counsel was not the same as that arising in the present proceeding (different factual context, legal developments, and statutory amendments), and even if the same, a reasonable observer would not apprehend that the judge would not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the questions involved. The mere giving of advice in an unrelated matter does not firmly establish apprehended bias by prejudgment.

Parties
First Applicant: A1; Second Applicant: A2; First Respondent: Betty King Q.C.; Second Respondent: Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia; Third Respondent: Minister for Police and Emergency Services for Victoria; Fourth Respondent: Inter-Governmental Committee; Fifth Respondent: National Crime Authority; Sixth Respondent: John Broome
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Disqualification (apprehended Bias) / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Application for disqualification refused. Respondents to pay applicants' taxed costs of and incidental to the application.
Legal Topics
Disqualification for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Judicial Duty to Sit, Judicial Disclosure, Apprehended Bias by Prejudgment
Courts and Judges Disqualification for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Judicial Duty to Sit Judicial Disclosure Apprehended Bias by Prejudgment

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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A1

First Applicant

A2

Second Applicant

Betty King Q.C.

First Respondent

Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Minister for Police and Emergency Services for Victoria

Third Respondent

Inter-Governmental Committee

Fourth Respondent

National Crime Authority

Fifth Respondent

John Broome

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Disqualification (apprehended Bias) / Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should be disqualified for reasonable apprehension of bias due to prior legal advice given as counsel to a party on a similar legal question in an unrelated matter

Ratio Decidendi

The application for disqualification was refused because the legal issue considered in the previous advice as counsel was not the same as that arising in the present proceeding (different factual context, legal developments, and statutory amendments), and even if the same, a reasonable observer would not apprehend that the judge would not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the questions involved. The mere giving of advice in an unrelated matter does not firmly establish apprehended bias by prejudgment.

Court Disposition

Application for disqualification refused. Respondents to pay applicants' taxed costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

  • The application that the judge disqualify himself is refused.
  • The respondents pay the applicants' taxed costs of and incidental to the application.