R v KT [2009] NSWDC 224

R v KT [2009] NSWDC 224

The certificate was granted because the prosecution depended entirely on the complainant being accepted beyond reasonable doubt, but her evidence was unsupported by the other Crown witnesses and inconsistent with their evidence and the surrounding circumstances. If the prosecution had known all relevant facts exposed by the Crown case, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and there was no act or omission of the Applicant that contributed, or might have contributed, to their institution or continuation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Costs Certificate / Application After Acquittal at the Close of the Crown Case Following a Prasad Direction
Outcome
Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.
Legal Topics
['costs Certificate' 'acquittal' 'prescribed Sexual Offence' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'credibility of Complainant' 'prasad Direction']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs Certificate' 'acquittal' 'prescribed Sexual Offence' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'credibility of Complainant' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Costs Certificate / Application After Acquittal at the Close of the Crown Case Following a Prasad Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a certificate should be granted under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 after the Applicant was acquitted.' 'Whether, if the prosecution had before proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether any act or omission of the Applicant contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The certificate was granted because the prosecution depended entirely on the complainant being accepted beyond reasonable doubt, but her evidence was unsupported by the other Crown witnesses and inconsistent with their evidence and the surrounding circumstances. If the prosecution had known all relevant facts exposed by the Crown case, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and there was no act or omission of the Applicant that contributed, or might have contributed, to their institution or continuation.

Court Disposition

Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Orders

  • ['Grant a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.']