Bassam Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services and Ors (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 273

Bassam Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services and Ors (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 273

The judge's only connection with Mr Baladjam and Mr Jamal was having appeared for the Crown in prosecution proceedings against them in 2008 and 2009. Neither gave evidence in those proceedings, and the judge did not cross-examine or criticise either of them. In those circumstances, an appropriately informed and fair-minded lay observer would not entertain a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, so the application for recusal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Recusal in Common Law Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Application for Recusal
Outcome
The application for recusal is refused.
Legal Topics
['litigant in Person' 'recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'prior Involvement With Witnesses']
['practice and Procedure'] ['litigant in Person' 'recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'prior Involvement With Witnesses']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Recusal in Common Law Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Application for Recusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge should recuse himself because, while at the Bar, he had appeared for the Crown in prosecution proceedings against two witnesses proposed to be called by the plaintiff.' 'Whether that prior involvement might cause an appropriately informed and fair-minded lay observer to entertain a reasonable apprehension that the judge may not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the issues in dispute.']

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's only connection with Mr Baladjam and Mr Jamal was having appeared for the Crown in prosecution proceedings against them in 2008 and 2009. Neither gave evidence in those proceedings, and the judge did not cross-examine or criticise either of them. In those circumstances, an appropriately informed and fair-minded lay observer would not entertain a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, so the application for recusal was refused.

Court Disposition

The application for recusal is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for recusal is refused.']