Flowers v State of New South Wales

In *Flowers v State of New South Wales*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal from a judgment of the Common Law Division. The appellant, Mr Flowers, sought to appeal a decision made against him, and the Court was required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal, whether to allow the adduction of further evidence, and whether the original trial judge had demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the appellant had met the statutory threshold for leave to appeal, particularly in the absence of a supporting affidavit and given that the matter was treated as an application for leave. The Court also had to consider the appellant's application to adduce further evidence, specifically to examine the opponent's lawyers regarding the conduct of the trial, despite a full transcript being available. Furthermore, the Court examined the appellant's challenge to a finding regarding the credibility of a police informant, the appellant's claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias against the trial judge, and the appellant's applications for a trial by jury on appeal and to vacate the hearing due to COVID-19 protocols.

The Court reasoned that the statutory threshold for leave to appeal was not met, and the appellant's challenge to the credibility finding was not substantiated as the allegation was not put to the police officer in cross-examination, nor was the finding inconsistent with objective evidence or glaringly improbable. The Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that while the judge had stated the appellant owed the State an apology, a lay observer would not necessarily perceive bias. The applications for further evidence and a jury trial on appeal were refused. The Court also noted that the appellant's concerns about COVID-19 protocols were addressed by the availability of audio-visual or telephone hearings, and his homelessness did not necessitate a live hearing.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal directed that the notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal, refused that leave, and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.