R v JT; R v AF

The case of R v JT and R v AF involved two separate criminal trials before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants, JT and AF, sought recusal of the trial judge on the basis of apprehended bias. The primary concern was that the judge had previously made comments that could be perceived as prejudicial to the applicants. This led to the applicants arguing that the judge could not fairly and impartially preside over their trials.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the comments made by the judge were so serious that they would lead a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the judge might be biased. The court had to apply the two-step process outlined in Porter v Magill, which involves first determining if the judge’s comments suggest a real possibility of bias, and if so, whether that bias is such that it would lead a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the judge could not be impartial. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicants were engaging in judge shopping, a practice that courts view unfavourably.

The court found that the comments made by the judge were not of a nature that would lead a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend bias. The judge's remarks were not directed at the applicants or their cases and did not indicate any predisposition or partiality. Furthermore, the court held that the applicants were not engaging in judge shopping as they had not previously sought the recusal of the judge in any other cases. The application for recusal was therefore refused, and the trials proceeded as scheduled.