Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Attorney General brought proceedings against Markisic, seeking various declarations and injunctions concerning his eligibility to be elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The primary dispute centred around whether Markisic was disqualified from being a candidate due to his criminal history. The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge, Justice Perram, was disqualified from hearing the case due to an apprehended bias.

The Court examined whether the trial judge had an apprehended bias based on his previous remarks and conduct during the proceedings. The applicant argued that Justice Perram's comments indicated a pre-existing hostility towards Markisic, thus creating a real likelihood of bias. The respondent contended that the trial judge's remarks were made in the context of the proceedings and did not reflect a pre-existing judgment on the merits of the case. The Court found that while the trial judge's comments were robust, they did not establish a real likelihood of bias. The Court concluded that Justice Perram's comments were made in the context of the adversarial process and did not demonstrate a pre-existing view on the merits of the case.

The Court held that the application for the trial judge's disqualification was refused. The trial judge was not disqualified from hearing the case due to an apprehended bias. The Court found that the comments made by the trial judge did not indicate a real likelihood of bias, and the proceedings could continue with Justice Perram presiding. The Court dismissed the application for disqualification, allowing the case to proceed to trial on its merits. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.