R v MM [2016] NSWDC 251

R v MM [2016] NSWDC 251

The Court was satisfied that, if the prosecution had possessed all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings. The 2008 medical records showed no uncertainty that the complainant had then reported the applicant was asleep; her later 2014 account became uncertain when those records were put to her; the Crown accepted that a main plank of its expert's opinion was undermined; the similarity between the 2008 and 2011 incidents weakened the case against sane automatism; and contemporaneous text messages after the 2011 incident suggested the applicant was not aware of what had occurred. Viewed as a whole, the applicant's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for a Certificate for Costs Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) / After the Trial Commenced, the Director of Public Prosecutions Directed That There Be No Further Proceedings, the Applicant Was Discharged, and the Costs Certificate Application Was Heard and Reserved for Decision
Outcome
The applicant was granted a certificate pursuant to s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate for Costs' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'sane Automatism' 'sexsomnia' 'voluntariness']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate for Costs' 'reasonableness of Instituting Proceedings' 'sane Automatism' 'sexsomnia' 'voluntariness']

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 (nsw) / After the Trial Commenced, the Director of Public Prosecutions Directed That There Be No Further Proceedings, the Applicant Was Discharged, and the Costs Certificate Application Was Heard and Reserved for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, if the prosecution had possessed 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 that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances' "Whether the Crown could exclude sexsomnia or sane automatism as a plausible explanation for the applicant's conduct"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that, if the prosecution had possessed all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings. The 2008 medical records showed no uncertainty that the complainant had then reported the applicant was asleep; her later 2014 account became uncertain when those records were put to her; the Crown accepted that a main plank of its expert's opinion was undermined; the similarity between the 2008 and 2011 incidents weakened the case against sane automatism; and contemporaneous text messages after the 2011 incident suggested the applicant was not aware of what had occurred. Viewed as a whole, the applicant's...

Court Disposition

The applicant was granted a certificate pursuant to s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['The Court granted a certificate pursuant to s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), specifying that in its opinion, if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.'...