Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196

Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196

By majority, the Court as presently constituted has jurisdiction to determine the application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). On the merits, given the conflict and weaknesses in the prosecution and defence expert evidence relating to the timing and cause of the fatal injuries, it would not have been reasonable for the prosecution to have instituted the proceedings had all relevant facts been known. There was no unreasonable act or omission by the applicant affecting the institution or continuation of prosecution, and therefore a certificate for costs should be granted. However, by operation of s.17 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, no costs can be...

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Jonathon Harold Manley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs Certificate Following Successful Appeal and Acquittal
Outcome
Certificate granted (by majority). By reason of s.17 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act 1912, no costs can be awarded in relation to the appeal or this application.
Legal Topics
Costs in Criminal Cases, Jurisdiction to Determine Costs Applications, Reasonableness of Prosecuting, Conflicting Expert Evidence, Discretion in Awarding Costs
Criminal Law Costs in Criminal Cases Jurisdiction to Determine Costs Applications Reasonableness of Prosecuting Conflicting Expert Evidence Discretion in Awarding 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Jonathon Harold Manley

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs Certificate Following Successful Appeal and Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present Bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to determine an application for a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether, on the merits, a certificate of costs should be granted to the applicant after acquittal, considering the reasonableness of instituting proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court as presently constituted has jurisdiction to determine the application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). On the merits, given the conflict and weaknesses in the prosecution and defence expert evidence relating to the timing and cause of the fatal injuries, it would not have been reasonable for the prosecution to have instituted the proceedings had all relevant facts been known. There was no unreasonable act or omission by the applicant affecting the institution or continuation of prosecution, and therefore a certificate for costs should be granted. However, by operation of s.17 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, no costs can be...

Court Disposition

Certificate granted (by majority). By reason of s.17 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act 1912, no costs can be awarded in relation to the appeal or this application.

Orders

  • Certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) granted in relation to the proceedings below.
  • No costs can be awarded in relation to the appeal or in relation to this application (s.17 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act 1912).