Chamoun v District Court of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 187

Chamoun v District Court of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 187

The cumulative effect of Hock DCJ's comments, viewed in their full context, would not cause a fair-minded observer reasonably to suspect that the judge might not approach the resumed sentencing proceedings with objectivity and detachment and without pre-judgment. The comments were preliminary views expressed during part-heard sentencing proceedings in which further evidence and submissions were to be received, and later conduct including refusal of detention applications was inconsistent with a concluded view. In any event, discretionary factors including the interlocutory nature of the application, the need to avoid fragmentation of criminal proceedings, and unexplained delay in making...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) Seeking Prohibition / Summons Filed 27 July 2018 Heard and Dismissed at an Interlocutory Stage of Part Heard District Court Sentencing Proceedings
Outcome
Summons filed 27 July 2018 dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'pre Judgment' 'recusal' 'sentencing Proceedings' 'supervisory Jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Intervention']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'pre Judgment' 'recusal' 'sentencing Proceedings' 'supervisory Jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Intervention']

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

Application for Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) Seeking Prohibition / Summons Filed 27 July 2018 Heard and Dismissed at an Interlocutory Stage of Part Heard District Court Sentencing Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court sentencing judge was disqualified by apprehended bias on the ground of pre-judgment because of comments made during part-heard sentencing proceedings.' 'Whether the Supreme Court should grant judicial review relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) in relation to part-heard criminal sentencing proceedings.' 'Whether discretionary factors, including interlocutory intervention and delay in bringing the recusal and judicial review applications, militated against relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative effect of Hock DCJ's comments, viewed in their full context, would not cause a fair-minded observer reasonably to suspect that the judge might not approach the resumed sentencing proceedings with objectivity and detachment and without pre-judgment. The comments were preliminary views expressed during part-heard sentencing proceedings in which further evidence and submissions were to be received, and later conduct including refusal of detention applications was inconsistent with a concluded view. In any event, discretionary factors including the interlocutory nature of the application, the need to avoid fragmentation of criminal proceedings, and unexplained delay in making...

Court Disposition

Summons filed 27 July 2018 dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons filed 27 July 2018 dismissed with no order as to costs.']