R v Buttriss [2024] NSWDC 234

R v Buttriss [2024] NSWDC 234

The critical issue for the alleged break and enter was whether the applicant opened a previously closed screen door before entering. Geelan's account given within hours of the incident identified the male companion as opening the screen door and he could not say how or by whom the door was opened or its prior state. Roberson's initial account placed the confrontation outside the dwelling, and even on his later alternative account he had no direct evidence that the applicant opened a closed screen door. Because the Crown evidence on the element of breaking was unreliable, contradictory and internally inconsistent, the Court was satisfied that, had the prosecution possessed all relevant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Application for a Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Following a Director of Public Prosecutions Direction That No Further Proceedings Be Taken and Discharge From the Indictment
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967' 'no Further Proceedings Direction' 'reasonableness of Instituting Criminal Proceedings' 'break and Enter' 'reliability of Prosecution Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967' 'no Further Proceedings Direction' 'reasonableness of Instituting Criminal Proceedings' 'break and Enter' 'reliability of Prosecution Evidence']

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 the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Following a Director of Public Prosecutions Direction That No Further Proceedings Be Taken and Discharge From the Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a certificate should be granted under section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 following the DPP's direction that no further proceedings be taken against the applicant." 'Whether, if the prosecution had been in possession of all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether any act or omission of the applicant contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The critical issue for the alleged break and enter was whether the applicant opened a previously closed screen door before entering. Geelan's account given within hours of the incident identified the male companion as opening the screen door and he could not say how or by whom the door was opened or its prior state. Roberson's initial account placed the confrontation outside the dwelling, and even on his later alternative account he had no direct evidence that the applicant opened a closed screen door. Because the Crown evidence on the element of breaking was unreliable, contradictory and internally inconsistent, the Court was satisfied that, had the prosecution possessed all relevant...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['I grant a certificate under section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 with respect to the costs of the applicant Grace Buttriss.' 'That certificate shall specify that if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of all the relevant facts, it would not have been...