R v Dillon; R v Locke; R v Taylor [2025] NSWSC 42

R v Dillon; R v Locke; R v Taylor [2025] NSWSC 42

A certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) was granted in favour of Evan Taylor because the prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of Jaysin Hay, whose evidence against Taylor was shown through listening device material, her own admissions, and CCTV evidence to be a deliberate lie. Investigating police were aware of Hay's falsehoods in 2020 but failed to adequately investigate or clarify her version, rendering reliance on her testimony unreasonable by the time proceedings were instituted. In Taylor's case, the prosecution should not have proceeded had it possessed all the relevant facts. As to Locke and Dillon, although Hay's reliability was attacked, her...

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex (Crown); Applicant: Jake Leroy Dillon; Applicant: Zackary Locke; Applicant: Evan Taylor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Trial: Application for Certificate of Costs Under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)
Outcome
Application granted for Evan Taylor; dismissed for Jake Leroy Dillon and Zackary Locke
Legal Topics
Applications for Costs Certificates, Reasonableness of Institution of Criminal Proceedings, Reliability of Prosecution Witness, Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)
Criminal Law Costs Applications for Costs Certificates Reasonableness of Institution of Criminal Proceedings Reliability of Prosecution Witness Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecutor

Jake Leroy Dillon

Applicant

Zackary Locke

Applicant

Evan Taylor

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Trial: Application for Certificate of Costs Under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it would have been reasonable to institute proceedings had all relevant facts been known before prosecution under s 3(1)(a) Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether acts or omissions of the applicants contributed reasonably to the institution or continuation of proceedings
  3. 3 Assessment of the credibility and reliability of the key prosecution witness

Ratio Decidendi

A certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) was granted in favour of Evan Taylor because the prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of Jaysin Hay, whose evidence against Taylor was shown through listening device material, her own admissions, and CCTV evidence to be a deliberate lie. Investigating police were aware of Hay's falsehoods in 2020 but failed to adequately investigate or clarify her version, rendering reliance on her testimony unreasonable by the time proceedings were instituted. In Taylor's case, the prosecution should not have proceeded had it possessed all the relevant facts. As to Locke and Dillon, although Hay's reliability was attacked, her...

Court Disposition

Application granted for Evan Taylor; dismissed for Jake Leroy Dillon and Zackary Locke

Orders

  • A certificate pursuant to ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) is granted to Evan Taylor in relation to the whole of the proceedings.
  • Applications of Jake Leroy Dillon and Zackary Locke are dismissed.