Clarke, Dallas v State of New South Wales (No 2)

The case of Clarke, Dallas v State of New South Wales (No 2) involved an application for the recusal of a presiding judge on the grounds of apprehended bias. The applicant, Dallas Clarke, sought to have the judge removed from the case due to concerns about the judge's potential bias. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the applicant alleged that the judge had previously made comments indicating a predisposition towards a particular outcome in the case. The application for recusal was made during the trial, and the judge's impartiality was brought into question.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the threshold for recusal on the grounds of apprehended bias. The court had to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated a real likelihood of bias on the part of the judge, which would warrant the judge's recusal. The court also had to consider the standard of proof required to establish such a real likelihood of bias, and whether the applicant had met that standard. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of the alleged bias on the fairness of the trial, and whether the prejudice to the applicant outweighed any public interest in maintaining the judge's involvement in the case.

In considering these issues, the court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court noted that the threshold for recusal on the grounds of apprehended bias was high, and that the applicant had to demonstrate a real likelihood of bias, rather than a mere possibility. The court also emphasised that the standard of proof required to establish such a real likelihood of bias was high, and that the applicant had to provide clear and convincing evidence to support their claims. After carefully considering the evidence and submissions, the court found that the applicant had not met the required standard of proof, and that there was no real likelihood of bias on the part of the judge. The court therefore dismissed the application for recusal, and the trial proceeded with the judge remaining in their position. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legal principles and the evidence presented in the case, and the outcome reflected the high threshold for recusal on the grounds of apprehended bias.