Regina v Bucksath [2000] NSWCCA 135

Regina v Bucksath [2000] NSWCCA 135

The stay ordered by Moore DCJ was unclear, uncertain and wider than justified by any unfairness to the respondent. However, because the Crown had offered an undertaking to pay two days' costs as a term of an adjournment, the case was distinguishable from Beeby and the judge had power to grant a stay giving effect to that undertaking. The proper stay was until the Crown paid the respondent's costs of 19 and 21 July 1999, to be agreed or assessed, and indemnity costs were not justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal From a District Court Order Staying Proceedings on an Indictment Until the Crown Paid the Respondent's Costs Thrown Away
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; District Court stay order varied.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'costs Thrown Away' 'crown Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'costs Thrown Away' 'crown Appeal']

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 Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal From a District Court Order Staying Proceedings on an Indictment Until the Crown Paid the Respondent's Costs Thrown Away

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court stay of proceedings based on abuse of process should be set aside or varied' "Whether the Crown's refusal and later offer to pay costs thrown away justified a stay until costs were paid" 'Whether the stay ordered was uncertain or wider than justified, including as to indemnity costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay ordered by Moore DCJ was unclear, uncertain and wider than justified by any unfairness to the respondent. However, because the Crown had offered an undertaking to pay two days' costs as a term of an adjournment, the case was distinguishable from Beeby and the judge had power to grant a stay giving effect to that undertaking. The proper stay was until the Crown paid the respondent's costs of 19 and 21 July 1999, to be agreed or assessed, and indemnity costs were not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; District Court stay order varied.

Orders

  • ['The order made by Moore DCJ on 21 July 1999 is varied to provide that the stay of proceedings on the indictment be until the costs of 19 and 21 July 1999 be paid to the respondent by the Crown.' 'Such costs are to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be in such amount as is assessed by a judge of the District Court.']