EIB19 v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.3)

In *EIB19 v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.3)*, heard before Judge Street, the applicant sought the recusal of the Court. The core of the dispute concerned an oral application for the judge to disqualify themselves from hearing the matter.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Court might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. This required the Court to consider the test for apprehended bias in the context of an oral application for recusal.

Judge Street refused the oral application for recusal. The Court applied the well-established test for apprehended bias, which requires an objective assessment of whether a reasonable member of the public, knowing the relevant facts, would apprehend that the judge might not be impartial. The Court found that the circumstances did not give rise to such an apprehension.