In the Matter of Steven Smith [2015] NSWSC 832

In the Matter of Steven Smith [2015] NSWSC 832

The application was refused because the applicant did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias. The alleged matters either had no logical connection to the issues to be determined in the contempt proceedings, were not established by the evidence, or rested on misreadings of R v Kennedy [2015] NSWSC 327. The warning about possible contempt penalties was a required warning, not prejudgment. The judge's alleged failure to ensure DPP guideline support or legal advice did not prove unfairness or bias, and the correspondence about the status of any Notice of Intention to Appeal did not show bias against the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Disqualification in Contempt Proceedings / Application to Presiding Judge to Recuse Herself Before Hearing Defence to Contempt Charges
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['contempt in the Face of the Court' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'recusal' 'summary Contempt Procedure']
['criminal Law' 'contempt of Court' 'judicial Bias'] ['contempt in the Face of the Court' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'recusal' 'summary Contempt Procedure']

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 Disqualification in Contempt Proceedings / Application to Presiding Judge to Recuse Herself Before Hearing Defence to Contempt Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the presiding judge should disqualify herself from further hearing contempt proceedings against the applicant on the ground of actual bias.' 'Whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the presiding judge might not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to the issues in the contempt proceedings.' "Whether the judge's warning to the applicant about possible contempt penalties amounted to prejudgment of penalty." 'Whether alleged views expressed or inferred from R v Kennedy [2015] NSWSC 327 or court communications established actual or apprehended bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias. The alleged matters either had no logical connection to the issues to be determined in the contempt proceedings, were not established by the evidence, or rested on misreadings of R v Kennedy [2015] NSWSC 327. The warning about possible contempt penalties was a required warning, not prejudgment. The judge's alleged failure to ensure DPP guideline support or legal advice did not prove unfairness or bias, and the correspondence about the status of any Notice of Intention to Appeal did not show bias against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The matter is adjourned to 17 July 2015.']