Duke-Randall and Randall (No 2)

In *Duke-Randall and Randall (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Duke-Randall, to disqualify the presiding Judicial Officer, Hannam J, from continuing to hear parenting proceedings concerning her two children. The dispute centred on parenting orders, with the issue of the children's immunisation being a central and contentious matter. The mother sought disqualification on the grounds of apprehended bias, alleging that the Judicial Officer had prejudged the immunisation issue.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Judicial Officer's conduct and affiliations demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, thereby necessitating disqualification. Specifically, the mother contended that remarks made by the Judicial Officer during a pre-trial mention indicated a prejudgment of the immunisation issue, and that the Judicial Officer's membership on the Board of the Menzies School of Health Research also suggested a predisposition towards vaccination. The court was required to determine if these factors, when viewed through the lens of a fair-minded lay observer, would lead to a reasonable apprehension that the Judicial Officer might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the case.

Hannam J applied the test for apprehended bias as established by the High Court in *Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy*, which requires a fair-minded lay observer to reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the decision. The court analysed the specific remarks made on 14 November 2013, finding that while they indicated the Judicial Officer had considered the connection between immunisation and the prevention of illness, they were tentative and exploratory, made in the context of interlocutory proceedings. Regarding the Menzies School of Health Research Board membership, the court found that while the school conducts research on immunisation, this did not demonstrate a prejudgment by the Judicial Officer, as Board members do not direct research and the specific research mentioned was not directly relevant to the case. The court concluded that a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend bias based on either the remarks or the Board membership, particularly given the Judicial Officer's training and obligation to decide based on evidence.

Consequently, the application for disqualification was dismissed. The court ordered that the Orders sought in the Application in a Case dated 9 December 2013 be dismissed.