Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4

Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4

Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 permits an accused to apply for costs after dismissal of a summary charge but only at the end of the summary proceedings. After the charges against Mr Trevitt were dismissed, the Court gave his legal representative an opportunity to raise anything further; no costs application was made, so the proceedings were then at an end. A later costs application, made about a year later, was outside the Court's jurisdiction, and the parties' agreement could not confer jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Application for Professional Costs After Dismissal of Summary Charges
Outcome
No jurisdiction to hear costs application.
Legal Topics
['professional Costs for Accused Persons' 'timing of Costs Applications' 'jurisdiction of Local Court' 'section 213 Criminal Procedure Act 1986']
['criminal Procedure' 'costs'] ['professional Costs for Accused Persons' 'timing of Costs Applications' 'jurisdiction of Local Court' 'section 213 Criminal Procedure Act 1986']

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 Professional Costs After Dismissal of Summary Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Local Court had jurisdiction under s 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to hear a costs application made about a year after summary charges had been dismissed where no costs application was made before adjournment at the dismissal hearing.' 'The meaning of the phrase "at the end of summary proceedings" in s 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 permits an accused to apply for costs after dismissal of a summary charge but only at the end of the summary proceedings. After the charges against Mr Trevitt were dismissed, the Court gave his legal representative an opportunity to raise anything further; no costs application was made, so the proceedings were then at an end. A later costs application, made about a year later, was outside the Court's jurisdiction, and the parties' agreement could not confer jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

No jurisdiction to hear costs application.

Orders

  • []