R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 616

R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 616

The application was dismissed because Mr Millar's 20 January 2017 statement could be considered under s 3A. The Court was satisfied that the statement was true and established relevant facts implicating Mr Byrnes. Given that statement, a hypothetical prosecutor in possession of all relevant facts before institution of proceedings would have acted reasonably in instituting the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for a Costs Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (nsw) / After Directed Verdicts of Not Guilty on Charges of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and Accessory After the Fact to Manslaughter
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'directed Verdict' 'accessory After the Fact' 'relevant Facts on Costs Certificate Application' 'admissibility and Use of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'directed Verdict' 'accessory After the Fact' 'relevant Facts on Costs Certificate Application' 'admissibility and Use of 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

Application for a Costs Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (nsw) / After Directed Verdicts of Not Guilty on Charges of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and Accessory After the Fact to Manslaughter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a certificate should be granted after Mr Byrnes was acquitted by directed verdict.' 'Whether, 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.' "Whether Mr Millar's 20 January 2017 statement could be considered under s 3A of the Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (NSW) despite being ruled inadmissible at trial." "Whether the facts asserted in Mr Millar's statement made the institution of proceedings reasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because Mr Millar's 20 January 2017 statement could be considered under s 3A. The Court was satisfied that the statement was true and established relevant facts implicating Mr Byrnes. Given that statement, a hypothetical prosecutor in possession of all relevant facts before institution of proceedings would have acted reasonably in instituting the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for a certificate under s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) is dismissed.']