Legal Research
Cases
R v Pinkstone

R v Pinkstone

Case [2001] WASC 252 13 September 2001

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION	:	R -v- PINKSTONE & ORS [2001] WASC 252

CORAM

: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD

: 24 AUGUST 2001

DELIVERED

: 24 AUGUST 2001

PUBLISHED

: 13 SEPTEMBER 2001

FILE NO/S

:	IND 124 of 2001

BETWEEN

: THE QUEEN

AND
ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
WAYNE JOHN YANKO
MICHAEL BRAZIER
PAUL PHILLIP BRAZIER

Catchwords:

Procedure - Criminal law - Judge - Disqualification on ground of perception of bias - Trial - Disqualification of trial Judge on ground of bias

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

[2001] WASC 252

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown	:	Ms G A Archer
Second-Named accused :	Ms V Amidzic
Third-Named accused	:	Mr L M Levy

Fourth-Named accused : No appearance

Solicitors:

Crown	:	State Director of Public Prosecutions
Second-Named accused :	Amidzic & Co
Third-Named accused	:	Laurie Levy

Fourth-Named accused : A Palumbo

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

Agostinelli & Lewis v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 326
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 75 ALJR 277

Goktas v The Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1993) 31

NSWLR 684

Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1
Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
Pinkstone v The Queen [2000] WASC 321
R v Pinkstone & Ors [2001] WASC 137
R v Pinkstone & Ors [2001] WASC 172
R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Simpson; Ex parte Morrison (1984) 154 CLR 101
Trustees of Christian Brothers v Cardone (1995) 130 ALR 345
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568
Webb & Hay v The Queen (1993-1994) 181 CLR 41

[2001] WASC 252

Case(s) also cited:

Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75
Brooks v Upjohn Co (1998) 85 FCR 469
Chow v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 593
DPP v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647
Dunstan v DPP (1999) 92 FCR 168
Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23
R v Alexandroaia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286
R v Van Phu Ho, unreported CCA SCt of NSW; No 60206/94; 18 July 1994
Rasayanakam v Thillainadesan (1996) 133 FLR 74

[2001] WASC 252

ROBERTS-SMITH J

ROBERTS-SMITH J: By application dated 16 July 2001 filed under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2000 ("the Rules") the applicant sought that I should disqualify myself from further hearing the case against him on the present indictment on the ground of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The application was supported by an affidavit of Anthony John Pinkstone sworn on 16 July 2001.
The application and affidavit were filed on 2 August 2001.
The application came on for hearing before me on 24 August on which occasion the applicant made extensive and detailed oral submissions in support of it.
At the conclusion of that hearing I ruled that the circumstances were not such as could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Pinkstone

Details

AGLC: R v Pinkstone [2001] WASC 252
Case: [2001] WASC 252
Decision Date: 13 SEPTEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pinkstone involved the defendant, Pinkstone, who was facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute was centred around the perception of bias against the trial judge, which Pinkstone alleged could affect the fairness of the proceedings. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine whether the judge should be disqualified due to potential bias.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge should be disqualified on the grounds that there was a real danger of bias. This involved assessing whether the judge's impartiality might be reasonably perceived as compromised by the circumstances surrounding the case. The court had to consider the legal standards and precedents regarding judicial disqualification due to bias and whether the allegations met the threshold required to warrant such a significant step.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the specific circumstances that led to the claim of bias. The court found that the judge had indeed displayed behaviour that could reasonably lead to a perception of bias, which was sufficient to warrant disqualification. This decision was based on the principle that maintaining public confidence in the judicial system requires that judges be seen to be impartial. The court ruled that the perception of bias, even if not actual, was enough to necessitate the judge's disqualification to uphold the integrity of the proceedings. The court thus disqualified the judge from continuing with the trial, ensuring that the case would proceed with a judge who was perceived to be impartial.

Orders