R v CPR [2009] NSWDC 219

Given the significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, lack of corroboration, the failure of the prosecution to eliminate the possibility of misidentification, and the evidence which emerged that undermined the reliability of the prosecution case, if the prosecution had possessed all the relevant facts at the time of charging, it would not have been reasonable to institute proceedings against the applicant.

Parties: Respondent: Crown; Applicant: CPR
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 19 August 2009
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Costs Application After Acquittal
Outcome: Certificate granted under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 s 2
Legal Topics: Costs, Reasonableness to Institute Proceedings, Credit of Complainant

Criminal Law Costs Reasonableness to Institute Proceedings Credit of Complainant

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Crown

Respondent

CPR

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Costs Application After Acquittal

Legal Issues

1 Whether it was reasonable to institute proceedings against the applicant given the credit and reliability of the complainant and all relevant facts established at trial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Certificate granted under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 s 2

Orders

The applicant have a certificate pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, s 2.