Knowles & Douglas

In the matter of *Knowles & Douglas*, the applicant mother, Ms Knowles, sought the recusal of Hannam J from presiding over parenting proceedings concerning the parties' child. The dispute involved serious allegations of child abuse made by the mother against the father, which the father denied. The proceedings had been allocated to the Magellan Program due to the nature of the allegations.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a fair-minded lay observer, aware of the circumstances, might reasonably apprehend that the judge could not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the parenting dispute. This required the court to consider the mother's contention that the judge's awareness of potential compromises or the nature of the allegations might lead to a deviation from deciding the case strictly on its merits.

Hannam J dismissed the mother's application, finding no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge reasoned that the test for apprehended bias is an objective one, requiring a fictional observer to hold a reasonable fear of partiality. The judge concluded that the mere fact of being aware of the allegations, the existence of the Magellan Program, or the contents of an expert report (which had not yet been tested) did not, in themselves, provide grounds for such an apprehension. The judge's role was to determine the parenting dispute based on the evidence presented, and there was no indication that this role would be compromised.

The mother's application seeking the recusal of Hannam J was dismissed.