David Harold Eastman v The Hon Justice Anthony James Besanko and the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory

In the case of David Harold Eastman v The Hon Justice Anthony James Besanko and the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, the appellant sought to disqualify Justice Besanko from sitting on the hearing of his appeal on the grounds of actual or apprehended bias. The appellant had been convicted and sentenced by Justice Besanko, and he appealed the conviction and sentence. The appellant’s application to disqualify Justice Besanko was made to a member of a Full Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Justice Besanko’s conduct revealed actual or apprehended bias, warranting his disqualification from the appeal hearing. The appellant alleged that Justice Besanko exhibited actual bias by expressing an opinion about the appellant’s preparedness and that his refusal to extend the custodial arrangements revealed apprehended bias. The court was required to assess these allegations and determine if they were substantiated.

The court found that Justice Besanko’s comments about the appellant’s preparedness were not indicative of actual bias. It was noted that the comments were made in the context of sentencing and were not reflective of a preconceived view that would influence the outcome of the appeal. Additionally, the court held that the refusal to extend the custodial arrangements did not reveal apprehended bias, as it was based on the merits of the application and not on any bias towards the appellant. The application to disqualify Justice Besanko was thus dismissed.

Justice Besanko was permitted to continue his involvement in the appeal hearing, and the appeal proceeded as scheduled. The appellant’s application for disqualification was refused, and no further orders were made in relation to the application.