R v Schick [2019] NSWDC 245

R v Schick [2019] NSWDC 245

The asportation of the cannabis was complete before any weapon was produced: the complainant had handed over the property, watched it placed in a sock, and the applicant had put it in the boot where the complainant could not regain possession. Because any threat with the weapon occurred only after the property had been taken, the evidence was incapable of establishing robbery. Those relevant facts were known to police and prosecution, and the relevant inquiry concerned the reasonableness of instituting the specific robbery proceedings, not whether other proceedings could have been brought. No act or omission of the applicant caused the prosecution to proceed. It was therefore not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for a Certificate for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / After Directed Verdict of Not Guilty on a Charge of Robbery Being Armed With a Dangerous Weapon
Outcome
Certificate for costs granted under s 2(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate for Costs' 'directed Verdict of Not Guilty' 'robbery' 'armed With Dangerous Weapon' 'inadequacy of Evidence' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'act or Omission of Accused']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate for Costs' 'directed Verdict of Not Guilty' 'robbery' 'armed With Dangerous Weapon' 'inadequacy of Evidence' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'act or Omission of Accused']

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

Application for a Certificate for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / After Directed Verdict of Not Guilty on a Charge of Robbery Being Armed With a Dangerous Weapon

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence was capable of constituting the elements of robbery where any threat with a weapon occurred after the complainant had parted with possession of the property.' 'Whether it was reasonable for the prosecution to have instituted the proceedings for robbery being armed with a dangerous weapon.' 'Whether any act or omission of the applicant contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The asportation of the cannabis was complete before any weapon was produced: the complainant had handed over the property, watched it placed in a sock, and the applicant had put it in the boot where the complainant could not regain possession. Because any threat with the weapon occurred only after the property had been taken, the evidence was incapable of establishing robbery. Those relevant facts were known to police and prosecution, and the relevant inquiry concerned the reasonableness of instituting the specific robbery proceedings, not whether other proceedings could have been brought. No act or omission of the applicant caused the prosecution to proceed. It was therefore not...

Court Disposition

Certificate for costs granted under s 2(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant a certificate for costs under s 2(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.']