Lambourne v Baker (No 8)

In *Lambourne v Baker (No 8)*, the applicant, Mr. Lambourne, sought the recusal of Griffiths AJA from presiding over proceedings on the grounds of apprehended bias. The dispute concerned the applicant's assertion that the judge's prior conduct and statements gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions to be decided.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis to demonstrate apprehended bias, thereby necessitating the recusal of Griffiths AJA. This required the court to consider the objective test for apprehended bias, which involves assessing whether a fair-minded lay observer, knowing the relevant facts, would apprehend that the judge might not decide the case impartially.

Griffiths AJA applied the well-established principles governing applications for recusal due to apprehended bias. The court considered the specific allegations made by the applicant concerning the judge's conduct and statements. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of demonstrating that a fair-minded lay observer would apprehend bias. The court concluded that the conduct and statements relied upon by the applicant did not, when viewed objectively, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of impartiality.

The application for recusal was declined.