CUR24 v Director of Public Prosecutions

The applicant, CUR24, sought to disqualify a judge from presiding over proceedings due to allegations of apprehended bias. The applicant contended that the judge had made out-of-court statements that indicated preconceived views about the case. The judge disputed the nature and content of these alleged statements. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, constituted by Basten, Whealy and Meagher JJA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether it was necessary to make definitive findings of fact regarding the disputed out-of-court statements before applying the test for apprehended bias, and whether, in light of the allegations, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal held that the test for apprehended bias requires an objective assessment of whether a fair-minded lay observer, having been informed of all relevant circumstances, would apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the issues to be decided. The Court found that it was not necessary to make findings of fact as to the precise content of the disputed statements. Instead, the Court considered the evidence as a whole, including the judge's denial of the allegations in the terms presented by the applicant, and concluded that the applicant had not established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Amended Summons was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.