De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 4]

The case of De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 4] involved a recusal application by the appellant, De Alwis, who sought to disqualify the presiding judge from hearing the case on the grounds of alleged bias. The dispute centred on whether the judge had prejudged the matter, thereby being incapable of impartially deciding the application. This was the second such application made by De Alwis in the same proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of actual bias against the judge. The appellant argued that his previous experiences with the judge, including a dismissed appeal for bail and a "springing order" made by the judge, justified his claim. The court had to determine whether these circumstances were sufficient to demonstrate that the judge's mind was irrevocably set, and thus incapable of being influenced by any evidence or arguments presented.

In dismissing the application, the court found that the appellant had not provided any evidence that the judge had prejudged the matter or that the judge's mind was irrevocably set. The court emphasised that for a claim of actual bias to succeed, it must be distinctly made and clearly proved. The mere fact that the judge had previously ruled against the appellant and that the appellant felt aggrieved did not constitute a proper basis for a claim of actual bias. The court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that a fair-minded lay observer would apprehend that the judge would not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the applications.

The final orders of the court were that the application for the judge's recusal was dismissed. The court found no grounds for the judge to recuse himself from the case, thereby allowing the proceedings to continue under his jurisdiction.