Alameddine v R

The case before the court involved a defendant, Alameddine, who appealed against the refusal of an interlocutory order by a trial judge. Alameddine sought leave to apply for a trial by a judge alone less than 28 days prior to the trial date. The Crown opposed the application but conceded that if leave were granted, they would not oppose the subsequent application for a judge alone trial. The trial judge declined to grant leave, considering the application as an instance of "judge shopping" due to the timing of the request. Alameddine argued that the refusal was erroneous because the Crown had accepted that the application did not involve judge shopping, and the other accused could not apply earlier due to the lack of consent from the other accused. The court needed to decide whether the trial judge was correct in refusing leave based on the perceived appearance of judge shopping, especially when it was acknowledged that neither applicant was engaging in judge shopping.

The legal issue central to the court's decision was whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing Alameddine's application for leave to apply for a trial by a judge alone. The court examined the trial judge's reasoning and whether it was appropriate to consider the appearance of judge shopping when both the Crown and the other accused had accepted that the application did not involve such practices. The court found that the trial judge erred in refusing the application on the basis that the appearance of judge shopping could remain, even though it was acknowledged that neither applicant was engaging in judge shopping. The court held that the trial judge should have considered that one accused could not apply earlier because the other accused did not consent, and the Crown had agreed that the application did not involve judge shopping.

The court allowed the appeal, concluding that the trial judge's refusal to grant leave was erroneous. It was determined that the trial judge should have focused on the fact that the other accused did not consent to an earlier application, and the Crown's concession that the application did not involve judge shopping. The court granted leave for the application to be heard and ordered that the trial by a judge alone should proceed. This decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors when a trial judge exercises discretion in such matters, and that the mere appearance of judge shopping should not override the acceptance by all parties involved that no judge shopping is occurring.