Motion for Recusal of Judge ppatpat 2026 SDCR 14
Motion for Recusal of Judge ppatpat [2026] SDCR 14
| Date of judgment | 20th January 2026 |
| Judges | Court of Review Judge Tech Support |
| Held | Motion for Recusal of Judge Ppatpat is denied |
| Applicable precedent |
|
DECISION by Judge Tech Support
Introduction
[1] In SDCR 10, Attorney General Terak seeks the recusal of Judge Ppatpat from the case due to being “biased against the states position in this matter”, “wilfully twisting the states arguments even after having been corrected in the past” and “actively wishes to manipulate the outcome of the case”. Judge Ppatpat has stated after being told that the right to a fair trial trumps SECRET that “well obviously the state thinks otherwise”.
[2] In order to determine whether a recusal is necessary , the court will consult the relevant text and precedent before handing down its judgement.
The CPA on recusals
[3] The CPA states that in Article 5§1 (a) (i) that “A motion to recuse a Judge may be made if there is a real likelihood that a fair hearing or trial is not possible.”
Did Judge Ppatpat’s comments create a “real likelihood that a fair hearing or trial is not possible”?
[4] Determining whether or not the judge violated these requirements is our first tricky test, and it’s important to understand why the recusal ruling was asked for by the Attorney General.
[5] The previous comments as stated in [1] allege that the judge was biased against the state's position. The court however does not agree with this assessment, it is a generally understood concept, and has always been in inquisitorial systems that a judge can ask the parties questions. The scrutiny from the judge onto the state in this matter, while harsh, does not show that they are biased against the state, and rather is them expressing parts of their opinion on the question. asking tough questions, and giving tough responses does not make the judge biased, Judge Ppatpat stating his opinion on the state’s argument, that it has led him to believe they value SECRET over a fair hearing, can simply be seen as what he has surmised from the state’s argumentation. The court is not convinced by this first factor in relation to the CPA.
[6] The second key point raised is that the judge was “wilfully twisting the states arguments even after having been corrected in the past.” Now for the judge to have been “wilfully twisting the states argument” it is to be presumed that they were on purposely misrepresenting the state’s points due to bias. Recusals are generally accepted to require an objective standard for implied bias, as stated in SDCR 8 [2026] - Motion to Recuse for Judge Muggy:
“[12] The inquiry is objective. The question is whether a reasonable observer would conclude that there exists a real likelihood that a fair hearing is not possible, or that a conflict of interest may exist. The law does not require proof of actual bias.”
[7] The court does not believe that the judge was wilfully twisting the state's argument, a judge is entitled to express their questions about a case, and whether or not they buy what the prosecution is saying. Whilst what was said could be seen as inflammatory, it is clear that they were not wilfully twisting what the state had to say, being harsh on counsel is not grounds for recusal, and whether or not the state is correct is a matter of subjectivity. Recusals are expressly a matter of objectivity. It does not appear that the judge is being biased or looks to be biased, as outlined above, a judge asking tough questions and implying their beliefs on a counsel’s testimony does not show them as biased, whilst it can be seen as “mean”, it does not show that they are wilfully twisting the state’s argument.
[8] The Attorney General also puts forward the argument for recusal that the judge “actively wants to manipulate the outcome of the case”. This is a grave accusation, however as established above, asking tough questions and both not buying into one side’s argument, and stating their views on the do not show them as wanting to manipulate a case, nor does it imply it, judges heavily scrutinise one side more than the other all the time, it does not mean or imply that they favour one side, it just shows that one argument produces more questions for them than the other. The court does not buy into this argument either.
[9] Simply put, in relation to the CPA the inquiry does not produce an objective result, there is enough predisposition to suggest that the judge was simply doing their job in this regard, in their ability to question counsel and state their opinions on the law.
[10] For this reason, the motion to recuse is not satisfied by the requirements set out in the CPA.
The Constitution on recusals
[11] The constitution states that:
“§2.1. Judges must recuse themselves in the event they may have, or may appear to have, a conflict of interest in the case except in the case where no other Judge can be provided.”
[12] The first answer here is a simple one, there are judges which can be provided, so the court will not digress on this part of the constitution much at all.
[13] Now does judge ppatpat appear to have a conflict of interest? The answer to that in the court’s eyes is no. Ppatpat is neither a party for either side in the case, and is not currently representing any of the parties in court, they do not have or appear to have a conflict of interest.
[14] It is clear that the judge does not satisfy the constitutional requirements for recusal either.
Verdict
[15] The court finds that under the requirements set out by the CPA, the judge is not biased or wilfulling misrepresenting what the Attorney General has stated, under the objective standard previously set out, they do not satisfy the requirements of being a biased party by the CPA.
[16] It is also clear to the court that the judge does not have to recuse under the constitutional standards, there is no relevant or clear conflict of interest, a judge having opinions on the case which they ask through their questions is not enough to satisfy them being conflicted or biased in a way which would harm one counsel’s argumentation.
[17] The court finds that Judge Ppatpat does not need to recuse, and may continue with the case.