Clark v Attorney General for New South Wales

In *Clark v Attorney General for New South Wales*, the applicant, Mr. Clark, sought the disqualification of White JA from hearing his application for judicial review. The dispute arose from Mr. Clark's assertion that White JA's prior involvement in a judicial review of a refusal to inquire into his conviction under s 78 of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW) created a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment in the current application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether White JA's previous participation in a related matter demonstrated a bias that would prevent a fair hearing of Mr. Clark's subsequent application for judicial review. Specifically, the court had to determine if the prior involvement evinced a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment concerning the refusal to inquire into Mr. Clark's conviction.

White JA reasoned that his prior involvement did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment. The court applied the well-established test for apprehended bias, which requires an objective assessment of whether a fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the issue. In this instance, White JA concluded that his previous role in reviewing the refusal of an inquiry did not preclude him from impartially considering the current application for judicial review of that same refusal. The application for disqualification was therefore refused.