Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

In Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No 2], the applicant, Mr Rayney, sought the disqualification of the judge on the basis of apprehended bias. Mr Rayney argued that the judge's previous involvement in matters concerning him raised a reasonable apprehension of bias. The primary legal issue was whether the judge's prior decisions and involvement in related proceedings generated a reasonable apprehension that the judge would not approach the current appeal impartially.

The court examined the test for apprehended bias, considering whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend bias based on the judge's previous decisions. The court found that the judge had not previously expressed clear views on the live and significant issues in the current appeal. The judge's prior involvement was in relation to different questions of law and fact, and did not involve making findings of professional misconduct against Mr Rayney. The court concluded that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias because the judge had not formed any views that would impact the impartiality of the current appeal.

The court determined that Mr Rayney had not established a proper basis for the judge's recusal. The appeal involved questions of law and fact distinct from those in the previous proceedings, and the judge's prior decisions did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court found that the judge could impartially decide the appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented.

The court dismissed the application for disqualification of the judge and made no orders for the recusal of the judge.