Regina v Roxanne Carmella Brincat [2016] NSWDC 100

Regina v Roxanne Carmella Brincat [2016] NSWDC 100

The fair-minded lay observer would regard the judge's comments during the adjournment application as an incautious or tentative expression made on limited material, and the adjournment judgment was objectively confined to whether the applicant would be prejudiced by remaining in custody until 2 June 2016. The comments were expressly qualified by the judge's lack of full knowledge of the applicant's subjective circumstances and statement that he had not prejudged the matter. The applicant did not articulate a logical connection showing that the judge might not sentence her on the merits. The earlier referral of the bail application to another judge did not establish apprehended bias for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Proceedings With Application to Disqualify Judge for Apprehended Bias / Procedural Ruling Before Sentence
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break and Enter With Intent to Commit a Serious Indictable Offence' 'steal Property From a Dwelling' 'sentencing' 'apprehended Bias' 'judicial Recusal' "correspondence With Judge's Chambers"]
['criminal Law' 'procedural Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['aggravated Break and Enter With Intent to Commit a Serious Indictable Offence' 'steal Property From a Dwelling' 'sentencing' 'apprehended Bias' 'judicial Recusal' "correspondence With Judge's Chambers"]

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

Criminal Sentence Proceedings With Application to Disqualify Judge for Apprehended Bias / Procedural Ruling Before Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the judge should disqualify himself from hearing the applicant's sentence proceedings on the ground of apprehended bias arising from comments made during an earlier adjournment application." "Whether the judge's earlier decision not to hear the applicant's bail application was determinative of the recusal application." "Whether email correspondence between the applicant's solicitor and the judge's Associate demonstrated unfairness, prejudgment, or unwillingness to recuse."]

Ratio Decidendi

The fair-minded lay observer would regard the judge's comments during the adjournment application as an incautious or tentative expression made on limited material, and the adjournment judgment was objectively confined to whether the applicant would be prejudiced by remaining in custody until 2 June 2016. The comments were expressly qualified by the judge's lack of full knowledge of the applicant's subjective circumstances and statement that he had not prejudged the matter. The applicant did not articulate a logical connection showing that the judge might not sentence her on the merits. The earlier referral of the bail application to another judge did not establish apprehended bias for...

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for me to recuse myself is refused.']