R v Gilbert [2022] NSWDC 624

R v Gilbert [2022] NSWDC 624

The statutory requirements for a certificate were satisfied because the complainant's accounts were demonstrated by the objective evidence and cross-examination to be very substantially lacking in credit, including accounts that were inconsistent with physical evidence and phone material. Viewed through the required retrospective knowledge of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and there was no relevant unreasonable act or omission by the defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Post Acquittal Application for Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)
Outcome
Certificate granted under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'complainant Credibility']
['criminal Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'complainant Credibility']

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 / Post Acquittal Application for Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a certificate should be granted under ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) after the applicant was acquitted on all counts.' 'Whether, if the prosecution had before proceedings were instituted been in possession of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether the Crown case depended on a witness who was very substantially lacking in credit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory requirements for a certificate were satisfied because the complainant's accounts were demonstrated by the objective evidence and cross-examination to be very substantially lacking in credit, including accounts that were inconsistent with physical evidence and phone material. Viewed through the required retrospective knowledge of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and there was no relevant unreasonable act or omission by the defendant.

Court Disposition

Certificate granted under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to the provision of sections 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), a certificate was granted to Brodie Gilbert relating to the charges of common assault, aggravated detain for advantage, intentional suffocation without consent, and intimidation.' 'The Court certified that if the...