R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 5) [2022] NSWDC 556

R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 5) [2022] NSWDC 556

The Court granted certificates to both applicants because each satisfied ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. As to the First Applicant, the Crown case did not rise beyond suspicion: there was no evidence linking her to control of the drugs or cocaine manufacture, her DNA and fingerprint evidence had innocent explanations, and she had no legal right to control the premises. As to the Second Applicant, although there was more evidence against him, including DNA and fingerprints on items associated with drugs and equipment, there were innocent explanations for that evidence, the Crown could not prove the manufacturing process occurred at the Birchgrove premises, and the more...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Applications by Former Accused Persons for Certificates Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 After Trial Outcomes
Outcome
Certificates granted in favour of the First Applicant and the Second Applicant under ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificates After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'drug Offences']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificates After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'drug Offences']

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 / Applications by Former Accused Persons for Certificates Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 After Trial Outcomes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Applicant was entitled to a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 after being acquitted of all offences charged against her.' 'Whether the Second Applicant was entitled to a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 after being acquitted of the charged offences, despite being found guilty of a statutory alternative count.' 'Whether, if the prosecution had possessed evidence of all relevant facts before the proceedings were instituted, it would have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether any act or omission of either applicant that contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted certificates to both applicants because each satisfied ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. As to the First Applicant, the Crown case did not rise beyond suspicion: there was no evidence linking her to control of the drugs or cocaine manufacture, her DNA and fingerprint evidence had innocent explanations, and she had no legal right to control the premises. As to the Second Applicant, although there was more evidence against him, including DNA and fingerprints on items associated with drugs and equipment, there were innocent explanations for that evidence, the Crown could not prove the manufacturing process occurred at the Birchgrove premises, and the more...

Court Disposition

Certificates granted in favour of the First Applicant and the Second Applicant under ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Orders

  • ['I grant a certificate in accordance with ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 in favour of the First Applicant.' 'I grant a certificate in accordance with s 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 in favour of the Second Applicant.']