Appeal of Joel Waller and Michael Hayes [2007] NSWDC 349

Appeal of Joel Waller and Michael Hayes [2007] NSWDC 349

The extended definition of "sentence" in s 3 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, insofar as it includes "any order for costs made by a Local Court against a person", does not include a Magistrate's refusal to make a costs order in favour of successful defendants. The clear language of the statute, including the concepts of an order being made and being made against a person, did not accommodate a failure or refusal to make an order. Accordingly the appellants had no appeal available on that basis and the appeal was dismissed under s 20(2)(c).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Costs Appeal / Appeal to the District Court of NSW From a Magistrate's Refusal to Award Costs to Successful Defendants
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondent prosecutor's application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Local Court' 'refusal to Award Costs' 'meaning of Sentence' 'statutory Interpretation of Order for Costs']
['criminal Law' 'costs' 'appeal and Review'] ['appeal From Local Court' 'refusal to Award Costs' 'meaning of Sentence' 'statutory Interpretation of Order for Costs']

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 Law Costs Appeal / Appeal to the District Court of NSW From a Magistrate's Refusal to Award Costs to Successful Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a refusal by a Magistrate to make an order for costs sought by a successful defendant amounts to an "order for costs made by a Local Court against a person" within the definition of "sentence" in s 3 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.' "Whether the appellants had a right of appeal under s 11 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 from the Magistrate's refusal to award costs." 'Whether the respondent prosecutor should receive costs of the dismissed appeal under s 28(3) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extended definition of "sentence" in s 3 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, insofar as it includes "any order for costs made by a Local Court against a person", does not include a Magistrate's refusal to make a costs order in favour of successful defendants. The clear language of the statute, including the concepts of an order being made and being made against a person, did not accommodate a failure or refusal to make an order. Accordingly the appellants had no appeal available on that basis and the appeal was dismissed under s 20(2)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; respondent prosecutor's application for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed in accordance with s 20(2)(c) of the Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001.' 'Application for costs refused.']