LE -v- MAGISTRATE BARBARA LANE [2014] WASC 494
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 494 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1977/2014 | 14 NOVEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 18/12/14 | |
| 20 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order prohibiting first respondent from continuing with the trial of the charges against the applicants. | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL LE CANH MINH LE CANH'S FAMILY COMPANY PTY LTD THANGS FAMILY CO PTY LTD MAGISTRATE BARBARA LANE CITY OF WANNEROO |
Catchwords: | Magistrates Court Act 2004 s 36 Review order Order in the nature of prohibition Trial Allegation of reasonable basis for perception of lack of impartiality and independence by judicial officer Issues of credibility arising concerning evidence of the respondent in the course of trial Magistrate conducting independent internet search by Google of facts deposed to by witness Magistrate putting results of independent internet search to witness on issue of credibility Application by counsel for defendants for magistrate to discharge herself from sitting No opposition to application by prosecution Application refused Trial adjourned to a date for further hearing Application to restrain or prohibit magistrate from presiding over resumed hearing |
Legislation: | Health Act 1911 (WA), s 141 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36 |
Case References: | Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 Hansen v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 180 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 Orleans Investments Pty Ltd v MindShare Communications Ltd [2009] NSWCA 40; (2009) 254 ALR 81 R v Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 37; (2004) 60 NSWLR 86 Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 205 Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342 Sabourne v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 242 Szbel v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152 Teakle v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 15 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- First Applicant
CANH MINH LE
Second Applicant
CANH'S FAMILY COMPANY PTY LTD
Third Applicant
THANGS FAMILY CO PTY LTD
Fourth Applicant
AND
MAGISTRATE BARBARA LANE
First Respondent
CITY OF WANNEROO
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Magistrates Court Act 2004 s 36 - Review order - Order in the nature of prohibition - Trial - Allegation of reasonable basis for perception of lack of impartiality and independence by judicial officer - Issues of credibility arising…
Continue reading Le v Magistrate Barbara Lane
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Le v Magistrate Barbara Lane [2014] WASC 494
- Case
- [2014] WASC 494
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Le and others sought to have Magistrate Barbara Lane removed from presiding over their criminal trial due to an alleged lack of impartiality. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the magistrate's conduct during the trial had created a reasonable apprehension of bias. This arose from the magistrate conducting an independent internet search into a matter that was testified to during the trial and subsequently questioning a witness about the results of this search.
The court found that the magistrate's actions did not constitute a breach of the duty of impartiality. The magistrate had acted within the scope of her judicial role in seeking clarification on the facts presented during the trial. The court held that the magistrate's actions were not so extraordinary as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court further held that the magistrate's actions were not so unfair as to justify the quashing of the proceedings.
The court held that the application to restrain the magistrate from presiding over the resumed hearing was not well founded. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the trial proceed as scheduled. The applicants were given leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
The court found that the magistrate's actions did not constitute a breach of the duty of impartiality. The magistrate had acted within the scope of her judicial role in seeking clarification on the facts presented during the trial. The court held that the magistrate's actions were not so extraordinary as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court further held that the magistrate's actions were not so unfair as to justify the quashing of the proceedings.
The court held that the application to restrain the magistrate from presiding over the resumed hearing was not well founded. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the trial proceed as scheduled. The applicants were given leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order prohibiting first respondent from continuing with the trial of the charges against the applicants.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.