R v Peter Anthony QUINN - Application for Costs [2014] NSWDC 59
The application for a costs certificate is refused because the defence did not establish that the institution of proceedings was unreasonable in light of all the evidence available before the proceedings were commenced. Issues of credibility and the lack of corroboration did not suffice to make it unreasonable to prosecute, especially as some corroboration existed and the case appropriately required determination by a jury.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Costs Certificate After Criminal Acquittal / Decision on Application for Costs Certificate
- Outcome
- Application for costs certificate refused
- Legal Topics
- ['costs Certificate' 'stay of Proceedings' 'verdict by Direction']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Certificate After Criminal Acquittal / Decision on Application for Costs Certificate
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the accused is entitled to a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 after being acquitted by direction following the DPP's discontinuance of proceedings"]
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a costs certificate is refused because the defence did not establish that the institution of proceedings was unreasonable in light of all the evidence available before the proceedings were commenced. Issues of credibility and the lack of corroboration did not suffice to make it unreasonable to prosecute, especially as some corroboration existed and the case appropriately required determination by a jury.
Court Disposition
Application for costs certificate refused
Orders
- ['The application for a costs certificate is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment