R v Bartlett [No 8]

Case [2014] WASC 49

R -v- BARTLETT [No 8] [2014] WASC 49



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WASC 49
25/02/2014
Case No:INS:107/201216 DECEMBER 2013 & 21 JANUARY 2014
Coram:EM HEENAN J21/01/14
16Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
PETER MERVYN BARTLETT
RONALD GEORGE SAYERS

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Procedure
Judge
Trial by jury
Application for disqualification on grounds of reasonable perception of bias
Retrial of accused

Legislation:
Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.4(3)

Case References:
BHP Billiton Ltd v District Court of South Australia [2012] SASC 62; (2012) 112 SASR 494
Bienstein v Bienstein [2003] HCA 7; (2003) 195 ALR 225
Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; (1993) 179 CLR 44
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 242 CLR 283
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WASCA 93
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1990] HCA 31; (1990) 170 CLR 70
Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427
R v Balic (No 2) (1994) 75 A Crim R 515
R v Kearns [2003] NSWCCA 367
Re JRL, Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342
RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3; (2000) 199 CLR 620
Tey v Optima Financial Group Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 192

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CRIMINAL
CITATION : R -v- BARTLETT [No 8] [2014] WASC 49 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 16 DECEMBER 2013 & 21 JANUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 21 JANUARY 2014 PUBLISHED : 25 FEBRUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : INS 107 of 2012 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
    Prosecution

    AND

    PETER MERVYN BARTLETT
    First Accused

    RONALD GEORGE SAYERS
    Second Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Procedure - Judge - Trial by jury - Application for disqualification on grounds of reasonable perception of bias - Retrial of accused

Legislation:

Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.4(3)

Result:

Application dismissed


Category: A


Representation:

Counsel:


    Prosecution : Ms Tatas on 16 December 2013 & Mr P Roberts SC on 21 January 2014
    First Accused : Mr C Boyce
    Second Accused : Mr D G Staehli SC & Mr A E Eyers

Solicitors:

    Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
    First Accused : Clifford Chance
    Second Accused : Clifford Chance



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

BHP Billiton Ltd v District Court of South Australia [2012] SASC 62; (2012) 112 SASR 494
Bienstein v Bienstein [2003] HCA 7; (2003) 195 ALR 225
Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; (1993) 179 CLR 44
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA…

Continue reading R v Bartlett [No 8]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bartlett [No 8] [2014] WASC 49
Case
[2014] WASC 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a retrial of an accused, Bartlett, on charges of criminal offences. The applicant sought the disqualification of the presiding judge based on a perceived bias, arguing that a reasonable observer might believe the judge had prejudged the case. The application was made in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The core issue before the court was whether the judge's conduct during the original trial warranted the disqualification from presiding over the retrial, as it was argued that the judge's comments indicated a bias that would prevent a fair trial.

The court examined the comments made by the judge during the original trial and considered whether these comments could lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the judge had prejudged the case. The court held that the comments made by the judge did not reflect a bias or prejudgment that would prevent a fair trial. The judge's comments were found to be within the bounds of legitimate judicial conduct, and did not indicate a bias that would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the judge could not be impartial. The court found that the application for disqualification was without merit.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for the disqualification of the judge. The order was that the application was dismissed, and the judge remained qualified to preside over the retrial. This decision upheld the procedural integrity of the court process, ensuring that applications for disqualification were made on substantial grounds and not on the basis of mere perceptions of bias.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.