Amos v Wiltshire

The case of Amos v Wiltshire involved an application by the applicant, Amos, to the Court of Appeal of Queensland for orders to vacate certain decisions made by the Court of Appeal on 25 and 28 August 2015. The applicant sought to vacate the decisions on the basis of alleged bias on the part of one of the judges, Wiltshire, who was a member of the Court of Appeal hearing the case. Amos contended that Judge Wiltshire ought to have disclosed his prior involvement as a barrister in a related matter, which he had been briefed to represent another party in a proposed appeal by Amos. The applicant argued that this undisclosed connection gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that Judge Wiltshire might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions he was required to decide. The Court had to assess whether the judge's prior involvement in the related matter, unbeknownst to Amos at the time, created such a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court examined the nature and extent of Judge Wiltshire's prior involvement and whether it was sufficient to lead a fair-minded observer to question the judge's impartiality.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application, found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Judge Wiltshire. The Court held that the prior involvement of the judge as a barrister in a related matter, which was not pursued and did not involve any findings on Amos's credit, did not give rise to such an apprehension. The Court considered the circumstances under which the prior involvement occurred, the nature of the prior involvement, and the lack of any connection to the current proceedings. The Court concluded that a fair-minded lay observer, fully informed of the facts, would not reasonably apprehend that Judge Wiltshire might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the case. Consequently, the application for the orders was refused.

The Court ordered that the application filed on 25 February 2016 be refused and that Amos pay the respondent's costs of the application, fixed at $8,000.