Snell and Snell (No 4)

In the matter of *Snell and Snell (No 4)*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications made by the Father concerning the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the judge’s own impartiality. The Father sought the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and requested that Justice Kent recuse himself from hearing the trial due to alleged bias.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Independent Children’s Lawyer should be discharged and whether Justice Kent ought to recuse himself from the proceedings on the grounds of apprehended bias.

Justice Kent dismissed the Father’s applications. While the reasons for dismissal are not detailed in the provided text, the court’s decision indicates that the threshold for discharging an Independent Children’s Lawyer or recusing a judge on grounds of bias was not met. The court also granted leave for parties to inspect documentation produced by the C Region PCYC in response to a subpoena, and for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide a supplementary bundle of subpoenaed documentation from the Queensland Police Service and Mr L to the Mother and Father. Furthermore, leave was granted for Australian Federal Police Officers to be provided with the PCYC documentation and to monitor the Father during his inspection.