Ortiz v R [2020] NSWDC 721

Ortiz v R [2020] NSWDC 721

On an objective evaluation of all evidence as it emerged at trial, assumed to have been available before institution, the complainant's evidence had manifest deficiencies and very substantial credit issues, including inconsistent reports of sexual misconduct, evidence of flirting, requests to witnesses not to disclose or retain evidence, refusal to nominate witnesses and refusal to provide his phone to police, and exculpatory conduct by the applicant. In those circumstances the case could not reasonably be instituted merely because it was word on word, and there was no act or omission by the applicant contributing to the proceedings; a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Application for a Certificate Pursuant to S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 After Jury Acquittal
Outcome
Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'complainant Credibility' 'word on Word Case']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'complainant Credibility' 'word on Word Case']

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 / Application for a Certificate Pursuant to S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 After Jury Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, if the prosecution had been in possession of evidence of all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.' 'Whether any act or omission of the applicant contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings.' "Whether shortcomings in the complainant's credit made this word on word prosecution unreasonable to institute."]

Ratio Decidendi

On an objective evaluation of all evidence as it emerged at trial, assumed to have been available before institution, the complainant's evidence had manifest deficiencies and very substantial credit issues, including inconsistent reports of sexual misconduct, evidence of flirting, requests to witnesses not to disclose or retain evidence, refusal to nominate witnesses and refusal to provide his phone to police, and exculpatory conduct by the applicant. In those circumstances the case could not reasonably be instituted merely because it was word on word, and there was no act or omission by the applicant contributing to the proceedings; a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act...

Court Disposition

Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Orders

  • ['A certificate is granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 in respect of the prosecution of the applicant for the offences alleged in the Indictment.' 'The certificate shall specify that if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of all the relevant...