Samuel Tessa v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Samuel Tessa sought judicial review of the trial judge's refusal to certify under section 295(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, claiming that the trial judge had engaged in conduct that demonstrated bias, prejudice or discrimination. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Tessa argued that the trial judge had discussed the case with a judge who had previously recused himself, and that the trial judge's conduct during the hearings demonstrated bias, prejudice or discrimination. Tessa also argued that the trial judge should have recused herself from the case.

The court considered whether the trial judge's conduct amounted to actual or apprehended bias. The court noted that the trial judge had discussed the case with another judge in a general sense, but there was no evidence that the discussion related to the issues in the case. The court also found that the trial judge's conduct during the hearings did not demonstrate bias, prejudice or discrimination. The trial judge's refusal to certify was correct, and the application for review was refused.

The court held that the trial judge's conduct did not amount to actual or apprehended bias. The trial judge had not discussed the issues in the case with the other judge, and her conduct during the hearings did not demonstrate bias, prejudice or discrimination. The trial judge's refusal to certify under section 295(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 was correct, and the application for review was refused. The court did not find any error in the trial judge's decision not to recuse herself from the case.