PFC v R (No 2)

The appeal was brought by the appellant, PFC, against the respondent, the Crown. The dispute centred on the appellant's challenge to his criminal convictions and the subsequent appeal process. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought reconstitution of the Court, arguing that remarks made by a judge during a case management hearing could be perceived as biased by a lay observer. Additionally, the appellant applied for leave to vary orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal, contending that the Court had proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law.

The court examined whether the judge's remarks constituted apprehended bias. The court held that a lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question being decided. Therefore, there was no apprehended bias. Regarding the application for leave to vary orders, the court found no misapprehension of law by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court also determined that there was no misapplication of the principles in SKA v The Queen in the original appeal decision. The court concluded that the appellant was attempting to reargue an unsuccessful appeal and that the misapprehension of fact relied upon was not material before the Court. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appellant's appeal, with no orders as to costs. The High Court confirmed that the original decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal stood affirmed.