Stenner-Wall v R [2024] NSWDC 365

Stenner-Wall v R [2024] NSWDC 365

KW was the key witness on whom the prosecution depended; her refusal to continue cross-examination was a relevant fact under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) and rendered her evidence and credit so unreliable that, assuming the hypothetical prosecutor knew all relevant facts, it was unreasonable to institute or continue proceedings on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. The applicant also satisfied s 3(b), which was not in issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application for a Certificate Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) / After Commencement of Trial and After the Crown Directed No Further Proceedings on Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10
Outcome
Application granted; certificate granted in respect of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 on the indictment.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate Under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)' 'relevant Facts' 'witness Credibility' 'refusal to Submit to Cross Examination' 'sexual Assault Trial']
['criminal Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate Under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw)' 'relevant Facts' 'witness Credibility' 'refusal to Submit to Cross Examination' 'sexual Assault Trial']

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 for a Certificate Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) / After Commencement of Trial and After the Crown Directed No Further Proceedings on Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether KW's refusal to continue giving evidence in cross-examination was a relevant fact for s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)." 'Whether, assuming possession of evidence of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute or continue the proceedings on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10.' 'Whether KW was so substantially lacking in credit that it was unreasonable for the Director to rely on her as the witness on whom the Crown case depended.']

Ratio Decidendi

KW was the key witness on whom the prosecution depended; her refusal to continue cross-examination was a relevant fact under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) and rendered her evidence and credit so unreliable that, assuming the hypothetical prosecutor knew all relevant facts, it was unreasonable to institute or continue proceedings on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. The applicant also satisfied s 3(b), which was not in issue.

Court Disposition

Application granted; certificate granted in respect of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 on the indictment.

Orders

  • ["I grant the certificate in respect of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 on the indictment and in the terms provided to me by the applicant's legal representatives."]