R v KT [2020] NSWDC 728

R v KT [2020] NSWDC 728

The Complainant's evidence, through no fault of his own, was very substantially lacking in credit by the end of the trial, with multiple implausible assertions, inconsistencies and reliability problems going to the central allegation. If the prosecution had possessed evidence of all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and no act or omission of the Applicant contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings. The requirements of s.3 of the Costs Act were therefore satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application for a Certificate Under S.2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / Judgment on Costs Following Jury Acquittal
Outcome
Application granted; certificate under the Costs Act granted.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'credibility of Complainant Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'credibility of Complainant Evidence']

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 / Judgment on Costs Following Jury Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should grant a certificate under s.2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 following the Applicant's acquittal." 'Whether, if the prosecution had before proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all relevant facts, 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, and whether any such act or omission was reasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Complainant's evidence, through no fault of his own, was very substantially lacking in credit by the end of the trial, with multiple implausible assertions, inconsistencies and reliability problems going to the central allegation. If the prosecution had possessed evidence of all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and no act or omission of the Applicant contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings. The requirements of s.3 of the Costs Act were therefore satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application granted; certificate under the Costs Act granted.

Orders

  • ['I grant a certificate under the Costs Act.']