R v DW [2020] NSWDC 233

R v DW [2020] NSWDC 233

The applicant satisfied section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). His withholding of shed construction evidence was a reasonable tactical decision, and the alleged admissions did not amount to admissions of the charges and were not unreasonable. If the prosecution had possessed the relevant facts before instituting proceedings, including that the shed was not built until after AB was 16, that counts 4 to 6 may have occurred before AB lived in the applicant's house, the absence of evidence for count 7, and the substantial lack of credit in AB's evidence, it would not have been reasonable to institute proceedings for counts 1 to 8.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Application for a Certificate Under Section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) After Not Guilty Verdicts
Outcome
Certificate granted
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs in Proceedings for Indictable Offences' 'certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' "defendant's Acts or Omissions"]
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs in Proceedings for Indictable Offences' 'certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' "defendant's Acts or Omissions"]

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 / Application for a Certificate Under Section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) After Not Guilty Verdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a certificate could be granted in respect of some counts but not others.' 'Whether, if the prosecution had before proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings for counts 1 to 8.' 'Whether any act or omission of the applicant that contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant satisfied section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). His withholding of shed construction evidence was a reasonable tactical decision, and the alleged admissions did not amount to admissions of the charges and were not unreasonable. If the prosecution had possessed the relevant facts before instituting proceedings, including that the shed was not built until after AB was 16, that counts 4 to 6 may have occurred before AB lived in the applicant's house, the absence of evidence for count 7, and the substantial lack of credit in AB's evidence, it would not have been reasonable to institute proceedings for counts 1 to 8.

Court Disposition

Certificate granted

Orders

  • ['A certificate pursuant to section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) be granted to the applicant.']