R v JS [2010] NSWDC 107

R v JS [2010] NSWDC 107

Although credibility issues are ordinarily for a trier of fact, the complainant's evidence had so many difficulties on the central issue of consent that the prosecution case was inherently weak and any conviction would have been perverse; it was therefore not reasonable to institute the proceedings, and there was no unreasonable act or omission by the defendant contributing to their institution or continuation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act / After Acquittal on Six Counts Following a Prasad Direction
Outcome
Certificate granted
Legal Topics
['costs Certificate' 'acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'complainant Credibility' 'prasad Direction']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs Certificate' 'acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'complainant Credibility' '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 Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act / After Acquittal on Six Counts Following a Prasad Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a certificate should be granted to the acquitted accused under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.' 'Whether, if the prosecution had before proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether any act or omission of the defendant that contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although credibility issues are ordinarily for a trier of fact, the complainant's evidence had so many difficulties on the central issue of consent that the prosecution case was inherently weak and any conviction would have been perverse; it was therefore not reasonable to institute the proceedings, and there was no unreasonable act or omission by the defendant contributing to their institution or continuation.

Court Disposition

Certificate granted

Orders

  • ['Certificate granted to the then accused under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.' 'The Court stated that if the prosecution had before the proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'The Court stated that any...