R v DJY [2012] NSWDC 59

R v DJY [2012] NSWDC 59

Although the complainant's evidence was contradicted in significant respects and the case was finely balanced, her evidence was not inherently unbelievable, aspects of it had the ring of truth, and the contradictory matters had explanations that were not inherently unbelievable. Because the case ultimately depended on credibility and demeanour, matters for the trier of fact, it was not shown that a hypothetical prosecutor would have acted unreasonably in instituting the proceedings. The application for a certificate was therefore declined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Costs / Application for Costs Following Jury Acquittal
Outcome
Application for costs is declined.
Legal Topics
['application for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act' 'jury Acquittal' 'single Crown Witness' 'sexual Assault Allegations' 'credibility of Complainant']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['application for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act' 'jury Acquittal' 'single Crown Witness' 'sexual Assault Allegations' 'credibility of Complainant']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Costs / Application for Costs Following Jury Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused should be granted a certificate for costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act after acquittal.' 'Whether, on the facts known to a hypothetical prosecutor immediately before proceedings were instituted, it would have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' "Whether contradictions and weaknesses in the complainant's evidence made the institution of proceedings unreasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the complainant's evidence was contradicted in significant respects and the case was finely balanced, her evidence was not inherently unbelievable, aspects of it had the ring of truth, and the contradictory matters had explanations that were not inherently unbelievable. Because the case ultimately depended on credibility and demeanour, matters for the trier of fact, it was not shown that a hypothetical prosecutor would have acted unreasonably in instituting the proceedings. The application for a certificate was therefore declined.

Court Disposition

Application for costs is declined.

Orders

  • ['Application to grant a certificate under the Costs and Criminal Cases Act declined.']