Clark v Attorney General of New South Wales (Recusal Application No 2) [2023] NSWCA 209

Clark v Attorney General of New South Wales (Recusal Application No 2) [2023] NSWCA 209

Section 110 does not apply as the present proceeding is not an appeal from a judgment of the judge. There is no basis for reasonable apprehension of bias as prior adverse findings against the applicant do not, in themselves, require recusal in supervisory review proceedings limited to questions of law.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Frederick Clark; First Respondent: Attorney General of New South Wales; Second Respondent: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Recusal Application / Application Before Court of Appeal
Outcome
Recusal application refused
Legal Topics
Recusal Application, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Prohibition on Judge Sitting on Appeal From Own Judgment, Judicial Review, Definition of Appeal
Practice and Procedure Recusal Application Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Prohibition on Judge Sitting on Appeal From Own Judgment Judicial Review Definition of 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Frederick Clark

Applicant

Attorney General of New South Wales

First Respondent

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recusal Application / Application Before Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 110 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) precluded the judge from sitting in the present proceedings
  2. 2 Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias requiring recusal

Ratio Decidendi

Section 110 does not apply as the present proceeding is not an appeal from a judgment of the judge. There is no basis for reasonable apprehension of bias as prior adverse findings against the applicant do not, in themselves, require recusal in supervisory review proceedings limited to questions of law.

Court Disposition

Recusal application refused

Orders

  • The judge declined to recuse himself.