R v Grech [2020] NSWDC 510

R v Grech [2020] NSWDC 510

The application was refused because the applicant did not show that it was not reasonable to institute the proceedings. There was evidence, particularly in the surveillance videos as summarised in the Crown case statement, from which a properly instructed jury could infer an intention to inflict severe pain on the rabbits. Although the prosecution depended on surveillance evidence that was ultimately excluded, the evidence was highly probative and important to serious offences, and in the circumstances it was not unreasonable for the hypothetical prosecutor to institute proceedings and seek to tender it under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Certificate Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) / After the Director of Public Prosecutions Directed That No Further Proceedings Be Conducted Against the Applicant
Outcome
Application for costs certificate refused.
Legal Topics
['costs Certificates in Criminal Cases' 'no Further Proceedings Directed by the Director of Public Prosecutions' 'admissibility of Surveillance Evidence' 'evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly' 'animal Cruelty Offences']
['criminal Law' 'costs' 'evidence'] ['costs Certificates in Criminal Cases' 'no Further Proceedings Directed by the Director of Public Prosecutions' 'admissibility of Surveillance Evidence' 'evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly' 'animal Cruelty Offences']

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 Costs Certificate Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) / After the Director of Public Prosecutions Directed That No Further Proceedings Be Conducted Against the Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had shown that, 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 there was evidence capable of proving the applicant's intention to inflict severe pain on the rabbits." 'Whether it was unreasonable to institute proceedings where the prosecution case depended on surveillance evidence later excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant did not show that it was not reasonable to institute the proceedings. There was evidence, particularly in the surveillance videos as summarised in the Crown case statement, from which a properly instructed jury could infer an intention to inflict severe pain on the rabbits. Although the prosecution depended on surveillance evidence that was ultimately excluded, the evidence was highly probative and important to serious offences, and in the circumstances it was not unreasonable for the hypothetical prosecutor to institute proceedings and seek to tender it under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Application for costs certificate refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for costs certificate refused.']