R v Pack [1999] NSWCCA 316

R v Pack [1999] NSWCCA 316

No provision relied upon enlivened a power in the Court to order payment of the appellant's wasted costs. Section 12(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act did not address costs, s 17 precluded costs on either side in appeal proceedings, s 6A(1)(c) of the Suitors Fund Act did not apply because the recommenced appeal hearing was not a new trial, and s 6C left any payment to the Director-General with the concurrence of the Attorney General rather than to an order of the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in a Criminal Appeal / Appellant's Application for Costs of 21 June 1999 After the Appeal Hearing Was Adjourned Part Heard and Required to Commence Afresh Before a Differently Constituted Court
Outcome
The Court made no order in relation to the appellant's costs of 21 June 1999.
Legal Topics
['application for Costs' 'suitors Fund' 'criminal Appeal' 'abortive Proceedings']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['application for Costs' 'suitors Fund' 'criminal Appeal' 'abortive Proceedings']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs in a Criminal Appeal / Appellant's Application for Costs of 21 June 1999 After the Appeal Hearing Was Adjourned Part Heard and Required to Commence Afresh Before a Differently Constituted Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s 12(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 empowered the Court to order payment of the appellant's costs incurred for the part-heard appeal hearing on 21 June 1999." 'Whether s 6A(1)(c) of the Suitors Fund Act applied because the need to recommence the appeal hearing could be treated as a new trial.' "Whether the Court could make an order under s 6C of the Suitors Fund Act in respect of the appellant's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

No provision relied upon enlivened a power in the Court to order payment of the appellant's wasted costs. Section 12(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act did not address costs, s 17 precluded costs on either side in appeal proceedings, s 6A(1)(c) of the Suitors Fund Act did not apply because the recommenced appeal hearing was not a new trial, and s 6C left any payment to the Director-General with the concurrence of the Attorney General rather than to an order of the Court.

Court Disposition

The Court made no order in relation to the appellant's costs of 21 June 1999.

Orders

  • ["No order in relation to the appellant's costs of 21 June 1999."]