Large v DPP [2019] NSWDC 831

Large v DPP [2019] NSWDC 831

The certificate should issue because, on all relevant facts, the Crown case against the applicant depended critically on police evidence that was unreliable, inconsistent and lacking in credibility concerning the stop, search, observations of the applicant, location and continuity of mobile phones, and the connection between the applicant and the alleged offending. The applicant had good character, there was no forensic evidence linking her to the drugs, cash, laptop bag or any particular phone, Copeland had admitted possession and had evidence exculpating her, and the interception, questioning and search were illegal. With those facts attributed to the prosecution before institution of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Certificate Pursuant to Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / After Trial Commenced, Evidence Was Excluded on a Voir Dire Pursuant to S 138 Evidence Act 1995 and the Director of Public Prosecutions Directed That There Be No Further Proceedings
Outcome
Certificate pursuant to Costs in Criminal Cases Act issued
Legal Topics
['costs Certificate in Criminal Proceedings' 'discontinuance of Prosecution' 'no Bill by Dpp' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 138 Evidence Act 1995' 'illegality of Search' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'credibility of Police Witnesses']
['criminal Law' 'costs' 'evidence'] ['costs Certificate in Criminal Proceedings' 'discontinuance of Prosecution' 'no Bill by Dpp' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 138 Evidence Act 1995' 'illegality of Search' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'credibility of Police Witnesses']

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 Certificate Pursuant to Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / After Trial Commenced, Evidence Was Excluded on a Voir Dire Pursuant to S 138 Evidence Act 1995 and the Director of Public Prosecutions Directed That There Be No Further Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction to issue a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1967 after the DPP directed no further proceedings following arraignment.' 'Whether, assuming the prosecution had evidence of all relevant facts before the proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings against the applicant.' 'Whether any act or omission of the applicant contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to grant the certificate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The certificate should issue because, on all relevant facts, the Crown case against the applicant depended critically on police evidence that was unreliable, inconsistent and lacking in credibility concerning the stop, search, observations of the applicant, location and continuity of mobile phones, and the connection between the applicant and the alleged offending. The applicant had good character, there was no forensic evidence linking her to the drugs, cash, laptop bag or any particular phone, Copeland had admitted possession and had evidence exculpating her, and the interception, questioning and search were illegal. With those facts attributed to the prosecution before institution of...

Court Disposition

Certificate pursuant to Costs in Criminal Cases Act issued

Orders

  • ['A certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act should be issued to the applicant.']