Boyd v The Queen (No. 2)

The case of Boyd v The Queen (No. 2) involved the appellant, Boyd, seeking to have his life sentences reviewed by the court. The matter came before a single judge who was responsible for determining whether Boyd should be granted leave to withdraw his application for the determination of his life sentences. The appellant subsequently sought the recusal of the judge who had denied his application for leave to withdraw, on the basis that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judge who had initially refused leave to withdraw should recuse himself from the final hearing of the determination application, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part. The court considered the circumstances in which the recusal application was made, the conduct of the judge, and the legal principles governing judicial bias.

The court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and accordingly dismissed the application for recusal. The court found that the judge's initial decision to refuse leave to withdraw did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court also noted that the judge had acted within his jurisdiction and had not displayed any conduct that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court further held that the appellant's arguments were speculative and did not demonstrate any actual bias on the part of the judge.

The court dismissed the application for recusal, and the matter proceeded to the final hearing of the determination application. The court found that the appellant had not established a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge, and that the judge was therefore not required to recuse himself from the matter.