Gurung v R [2012] NSWCCA 201

Gurung v R [2012] NSWCCA 201

By majority, leave to appeal was refused because the transcript did not justify a conclusion that a reasonable bystander would apprehend bias, the substantive matters relied upon were insufficient to support a grant of leave under s 5F, and it was unnecessary or inappropriate in this case to resolve whether there was an appealable interlocutory judgment or order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Interlocutory Application Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Proceedings Concerning Refusal to Recuse and Adjourned Hearing of Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'section 5 F Interlocutory Appeal' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'judicial Recusal' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'bail']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'section 5 F Interlocutory Appeal' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'judicial Recusal' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'bail']

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 Appeal; Interlocutory Application Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Proceedings Concerning Refusal to Recuse and Adjourned Hearing of Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court judge's refusal to recuse himself gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias." 'Whether a refusal to recuse, or an order fixing or adjourning a hearing date after refusal to recuse, was an interlocutory judgment or order capable of appeal under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, leave to appeal was refused because the transcript did not justify a conclusion that a reasonable bystander would apprehend bias, the substantive matters relied upon were insufficient to support a grant of leave under s 5F, and it was unnecessary or inappropriate in this case to resolve whether there was an appealable interlocutory judgment or order.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']