Solomon Law Reports

recusal – whether judge’s earlier statements in interlocutory application were conclusive statements on the substance of proceedings and judge would not be impartial – a judge who has made adverse findings against any litigant is not disqualified to hear same case against same litigant even if judge has made adverse findings and expressed typical judicial restraint against particular litigant – where judge has made adverse findings against character of litigant a fair-minded lay observer may reasonably perceive that judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of issues involved in subsequent proceedings – test for a fair-minded observer is any ordinary Solomon Islander who is made aware of the necessary facts – for judicially expressed statements test should be any legal practitioner Solomon Islander having practical knowledge of the technicalities at play at an interlocutory application – any ordinary Solomon Islander would not know judicial technicality – a judge who has made adverse judicially expressed comments is not to be perceived as having a pre-determined mind on the substance of proceedings – judges should take application for recusal seriously because a negative perception of bias is attached with such application – when good reason is disclosed for recusal judge must stand aside to protect integrity independence and impartiality of court – judge should not easily give in to recusal because recusal means judge is off-loading extra work to another judge