R v Padovan [2012] NSWSC 204

R v Padovan [2012] NSWSC 204

On the evidence relied upon by the Crown and the evidence as a whole, the case that the applicant was an aggressor or participant in unlawful violence at Gate 5 or in the departure hall was inherently tenuous and weak, and the evidence was consistent with him being attacked or acting in self-defence. It was therefore not reasonable for the Crown to have instituted the proceedings, and there was no unreasonable act or omission by the applicant contributing to their institution or continuation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for a Costs Certificate in Criminal Proceedings / After Acquittal; Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.
Legal Topics
['costs Certificate' 'costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967' 'affray' 'riot' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'self Defence']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs Certificate' 'costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967' 'affray' 'riot' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'self Defence']

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 a Costs Certificate in Criminal Proceedings / After Acquittal; Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was not reasonable for the Crown to have instituted proceedings against David Padovan on the charge of affray concerning the incident at Gate 5.' 'Whether it was not reasonable for the Crown to have instituted proceedings against David Padovan on the charges of riot and affray in the departure hall.' 'Whether any unreasonable act or omission by David Padovan contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence relied upon by the Crown and the evidence as a whole, the case that the applicant was an aggressor or participant in unlawful violence at Gate 5 or in the departure hall was inherently tenuous and weak, and the evidence was consistent with him being attacked or acting in self-defence. It was therefore not reasonable for the Crown to have instituted the proceedings, and there was no unreasonable act or omission by the applicant contributing to their institution or continuation.

Court Disposition

Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Orders

  • ['Mr Padovan is granted a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.']