R v Jenkins Summary | CaseChat AU

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0161

THE QUEEN

KETAPAT JENKINS

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 December 2013
DATE OF RULING:	18 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Jenkins
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 684

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Child homicide – Application to trial Judge to recuse – Relationship between trial Judge and trial witness – Apprehended bias – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	A. Tinney SC S. Flynn	OPP
For the Accused	M. Fox	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

I am unsure whether my old and indirect dealings with the accused's father-in-law and that man's father are sufficient to undermine the trial process with an appearance of bias. Nevertheless, I thought those dealings were of sufficient significance to bring to counsel's attention and it may be that a trial judge is not particularly well placed to appreciate objective perceptions about his or her capacity to hear a trial with an appearance of impartiality.

This is a tragic case involving a death of an infant. Emotions may well become charged. It is certain that I will make rulings on contentious issues and those rulings may cause angst to the party adversely affected. I consider that it would be a pity to risk contamination of the integrity of the trial process, even if, in my view, that contamination only exists in the mind of a subjective or partial observer.

Put simply, even if there are no sufficient grounds to justify my recusal, there are some grounds and I may not be the best person to judge whether they are sufficient. The integrity of the trial process is a precious resource and in the circumstances, I think it prudent to recuse myself from hearing the trial.

I have made enquiries and it is highly likely that Justice Lasry will hear the trial on the appointed date. It has been emphasised to my divisional head that this matter has been delayed on a couple of occasions and it is highly desirable that it proceed on the appointed date. This will be confirmed in due course .

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jenkins involves the appellant, who was convicted of the homicide of his child, and the respondent, the state of Victoria. The dispute arose from an application by the appellant to the trial judge for his recusal due to a perceived relationship between the judge and a key witness. This application was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have recused himself from the case due to an alleged relationship with a witness, which could lead to an apprehension of bias.

The court examined the relationship between the trial judge and the witness, focusing on the nature and extent of the interactions. It was established that the judge had a prior acquaintance with the witness, which could potentially influence the impartiality of the judge. The court considered whether this relationship was such that a reasonable observer might apprehend that the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the case. The court also weighed the public interest in the fair administration of justice and the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

In its decision, the court concluded that the relationship between the judge and the witness was indeed sufficient to give rise to an apprehension of bias. The court held that the trial judge should have recused himself from the case due to the potential for bias. The court emphasised the importance of impartiality in judicial proceedings and the necessity for judges to avoid even the appearance of bias. Consequently, the court granted the appellant's application for the trial judge to recuse himself.

The final orders of the court were that the trial judge should recuse himself from the case, and the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court for a retrial before a different judge. The court's decision underscored the critical role of judicial impartiality in ensuring the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system.

R v Jenkins

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established