R v TSMILAS [2009] NSWDC 436

R v TSMILAS [2009] NSWDC 436

On all the evidence, a hypothetical prosecutor possessed of the relevant facts would have known that the Crown case depended on Mr Cave, whose credibility and connection to similar drug supply were seriously compromised, and that there were substantial unresolved matters including the missing key to the locked cash box and evidence pointing to Mr Cave's possession. It was therefore not reasonable for the proceedings to have been instituted, and no act or omission of the accused contributed to the commencement or continuation of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / After a Prasad Direction and Acquittal at Trial; Application for a Certificate Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act
Outcome
Cost application granted
Legal Topics
['application for Costs' 'certificate Under Costs in Criminal Cases Act' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'drug Possession Allegations' 'prasad Direction']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['application for Costs' 'certificate Under Costs in Criminal Cases Act' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'drug Possession Allegations' 'prasad Direction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Costs Application / After a Prasad Direction and Acquittal at Trial; Application for a Certificate Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, if the prosecution had known before instituting proceedings what was known after the trial, it would have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether any act or omission of the accused contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.' 'Whether the accused should receive a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

On all the evidence, a hypothetical prosecutor possessed of the relevant facts would have known that the Crown case depended on Mr Cave, whose credibility and connection to similar drug supply were seriously compromised, and that there were substantial unresolved matters including the missing key to the locked cash box and evidence pointing to Mr Cave's possession. It was therefore not reasonable for the proceedings to have been instituted, and no act or omission of the accused contributed to the commencement or continuation of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Cost application granted

Orders

  • ['Application for a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act granted.']