AB v AG (Capacity) [2020] JCA 094 (29 May 2020)

AB v AG (Capacity) [2020] JCA 094 (29 May 2020)

None of the facts relied upon by the Appellant—Sir Michael's patronage of 'My Voice', his former and current judicial roles, or his involvement in the McGonnell case—would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias; therefore, there was no basis for recusal.

Citation
[2020] JCA 094
Parties
Appellant: AB; Respondent: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Renewed Application for Recusal of Judge Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Application for recusal refused
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Judicial Impartiality, Capacity and Self Determination (jersey) Law 2016, Article 6 ECHR, Institutional Bias
Judicial Recusal Bias Capacity Law Apparent Bias Judicial Impartiality Capacity and Self Determination (jersey) Law 2016 Article 6 ECHR Institutional Bias

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

HM Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Renewed Application for Recusal of Judge Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sir Michael Birt JA should have recused himself from sitting on the appeal due to alleged apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

None of the facts relied upon by the Appellant—Sir Michael's patronage of 'My Voice', his former and current judicial roles, or his involvement in the McGonnell case—would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias; therefore, there was no basis for recusal.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused

Orders

  • Sir Michael Birt JA need not recuse himself from sitting on the appeal.