R v Derley [2015] NSWDC 442

R v Derley [2015] NSWDC 442

The trial never commenced for the purposes of s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act because the accused was never arraigned and never pleaded not guilty. Setting the matter down for trial was not equivalent to arraignment. The District Court therefore had no jurisdiction to grant a certificate under the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act / Application After the Accused Was Not Arraigned and the Matter Was Terminated by the DPP With No Further Proceedings Directed
Outcome
Court has no jurisdiction and the application is refused.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'commencement of Trial' 'arraignment' 'district Court Jurisdiction' 'ex Officio Indictment']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'commencement of Trial' 'arraignment' 'district Court Jurisdiction' 'ex Officio Indictment']

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 Application for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act / Application After the Accused Was Not Arraigned and the Matter Was Terminated by the DPP With No Further Proceedings Directed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court had jurisdiction under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act to grant a costs certificate where the accused had never been arraigned before the matter was no billed.' "Whether setting the matter down for trial amounted to commencement of the accused's trial for the purposes of s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial never commenced for the purposes of s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act because the accused was never arraigned and never pleaded not guilty. Setting the matter down for trial was not equivalent to arraignment. The District Court therefore had no jurisdiction to grant a certificate under the Act.

Court Disposition

Court has no jurisdiction and the application is refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']