R v Rogowski-Dann [2019] NSWDC 638

R v Rogowski-Dann [2019] NSWDC 638

The court declined to grant the Mosely order for a stay pending payment of wasted costs because it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was an egregious or sufficiently serious fault by the prosecution or the police officer in connection with the non-disclosure of the police intelligence. The evidence did not establish deliberate or gross misconduct, and the circumstances were not exceptional, special, or unusual to warrant the rare remedy sought. The court also noted that the application could have been addressed differently, and the issue of intelligence was not material to the accused’s good character given the Crown’s concession on the absence of prior...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Motion Before Trial
Outcome
Application for stay and Mosely order declined.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'mosely Order' 'disclosure Obligations' 'costs in Criminal Trials']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'mosely Order' 'disclosure Obligations' 'costs in Criminal Trials']

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 / Interlocutory Motion Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether proceedings should be stayed until the accused's wasted costs of a previous trial are paid (Mosely order)" 'Adequacy of prosecution disclosure regarding police intelligence' "Responsibility for prejudice caused by evidence of 'intelligence'" 'Standard for ordering costs in criminal proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant the Mosely order for a stay pending payment of wasted costs because it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was an egregious or sufficiently serious fault by the prosecution or the police officer in connection with the non-disclosure of the police intelligence. The evidence did not establish deliberate or gross misconduct, and the circumstances were not exceptional, special, or unusual to warrant the rare remedy sought. The court also noted that the application could have been addressed differently, and the issue of intelligence was not material to the accused’s good character given the Crown’s concession on the absence of prior...

Court Disposition

Application for stay and Mosely order declined.

Orders

  • ['I decline to make the order sought by the accused.']