David Harold Eastman v The Honourable Jeffrey Allan Miles

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, David Harold Eastman filed an application against the Honourable Jeffrey Allan Miles, with the Attorney General of the Australian Capital Territory intervening. The application sought the disqualification of the judge on grounds of actual bias or, alternatively, apprehended bias. The court was required to determine whether the judge's conduct during the proceedings indicated actual or apprehended bias, impacting the fairness of the trial.

The court meticulously examined the applicant's arguments, which centred on several incidents during the proceedings. These included the judge's allowance of a barrister to appear despite potential conflicts of interest, the judge's comments on the relevance of certain affidavit evidence, and the judge's refusal to grant interim relief regarding the applicant's transfer from prison. Each of these points was assessed against the legal standards for bias, particularly the apprehension of bias principle established in Johnson v Johnson and reiterated in Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. The court concluded that none of the actions or comments by the judge warranted a finding of actual or apprehended bias. The judge's conduct was found to be within the bounds of judicial discretion and did not indicate any predisposition to partiality or lack of impartiality.

The court dismissed the application for disqualification, affirming that the judge's actions did not suggest any form of bias that would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. The decision was grounded in the principle that justice must be perceived to be done, and the court found no basis for the apprehension that the judge might not be impartial.

The final orders of the court were that the oral application be dismissed, with no disqualification of the judge on grounds of actual or apprehended bias.