R v CT [2023] NSWDC 31

R v CT [2023] NSWDC 31

The statutory prerequisite for a certificate was satisfied because, with hindsight and possession of all relevant facts before the 2018 charge, including the rejection of the tendency application, the acquittals on the ST/JT allegations, the absence of the tendency contended for by the Crown, the flawed and unreliable 2003 complaint, and the failure of the 2018 and 2021 accounts to remediate those defects, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings. The Crown case was prima facie but did not have reasonable prospects of conviction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Application for a Certificate Under Sections 2 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) Following a Not Guilty Verdict
Outcome
Application granted; certificate granted to the defendant/applicant under section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate Following Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'child Sexual Offence Allegation' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate Following Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'child Sexual Offence Allegation' 'tendency Evidence']

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 / Application for a Certificate Under Sections 2 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) Following a Not Guilty Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, if the prosecution had before the proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether the applicant should be granted a certificate under section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) after acquittal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory prerequisite for a certificate was satisfied because, with hindsight and possession of all relevant facts before the 2018 charge, including the rejection of the tendency application, the acquittals on the ST/JT allegations, the absence of the tendency contended for by the Crown, the flawed and unreliable 2003 complaint, and the failure of the 2018 and 2021 accounts to remediate those defects, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings. The Crown case was prima facie but did not have reasonable prospects of conviction.

Court Disposition

Application granted; certificate granted to the defendant/applicant under section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['The orders in the Notice of Motion dated 11 November 2022 are made.' 'A certificate is granted to the defendant/applicant under section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).' "The Court recommends that the applicant's costs be paid on an indemnity basis."]