AZO24 v Commonwealth

The case of AZO24 v Commonwealth saw the applicant, AZO24, seeking the disqualification of a judge presiding over their case on the basis of apprehended bias. The applicant alleged that the judge, who had been appointed to the Federal Court of Australia by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the current federal government, had an apprehended bias due to serious misconduct by all Australian Prime Ministers and federal Attorneys-General since 2017. The matter was brought before the court to determine the reasonableness of the apprehension of bias raised by the applicant.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judge's appointment and the alleged misconduct of government officials were sufficient grounds to conclude that a reasonable observer might consider the judge to be biased. The court had to examine the nature of the bias alleged, the relationship between the alleged misconduct and the judge's role, and whether the apprehension of bias was reasonable in the context of the judge's appointment and the applicant's claims.

The court found that the applicant's allegations of misconduct by government officials, while serious, were not directly connected to the judge in a way that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that the judge's appointment by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the current federal government did not automatically lead to a finding of bias. Furthermore, the court determined that the apprehension of bias was not reasonable given the lack of direct evidence linking the judge to the alleged misconduct. Consequently, the application for disqualification was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for disqualification of the judge was to be refused. The entry of these orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.