Reddy v R Tan v R [2013] NSWSC 907

Reddy v R Tan v R [2013] NSWSC 907

The applicants satisfied s 3(1)(b) because there was no firm evidentiary basis that Reddy, or Tan by association, knew of or accessed the stolen laptop or USB stick containing Detective Senior Constable Bristow's note, and no evidence of Tan's knowledge. In any event, the note was a prosecution document already in the possession of the prosecuting authorities because the police are included in that expression. It was not defence material, and the Crown's argument misconstrued s 3(1)(b). There were no discretionary considerations justifying refusal of a certificate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for a Certificate for Costs From the Crown Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / After the Applicants Were Arraigned, a Jury Was Empanelled, the Proceedings Were No Billed and the Applicants Were Discharged
Outcome
Certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 granted to each applicant.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate for Costs From Crown' 'no Bill' 'discharge After Commencement of Trial' 'prosecuting Authorities' 'withholding Material']
['criminal Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'certificate for Costs From Crown' 'no Bill' 'discharge After Commencement of Trial' 'prosecuting Authorities' 'withholding Material']

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 From the Crown Under S 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 / After the Applicants Were Arraigned, a Jury Was Empanelled, the Proceedings Were No Billed and the Applicants Were Discharged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants satisfied s 3(1)(b) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 to the civil standard.' "Whether the applicants unreasonably withheld Detective Senior Constable Bristow's note from prosecuting authorities." 'Whether prosecuting authorities includes the police for the purposes of information in the possession of the prosecution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants satisfied s 3(1)(b) because there was no firm evidentiary basis that Reddy, or Tan by association, knew of or accessed the stolen laptop or USB stick containing Detective Senior Constable Bristow's note, and no evidence of Tan's knowledge. In any event, the note was a prosecution document already in the possession of the prosecuting authorities because the police are included in that expression. It was not defence material, and the Crown's argument misconstrued s 3(1)(b). There were no discretionary considerations justifying refusal of a certificate.

Court Disposition

Certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 granted to each applicant.

Orders

  • ['A certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 is granted to Nathan Keith Reddy.' 'A certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 is granted to Anthony Tan.']