Rowlands v R (No 2) [2022] NSWDC 273

Rowlands v R (No 2) [2022] NSWDC 273

The statutory threshold for awarding costs against the public prosecutor under s 70 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 was not reached; the alleged defects in investigation or prosecution conduct did not amount to unreasonableness or impropriety. Accordingly, the application for an order for costs is dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal
Outcome
The appellant's application for an order for costs is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Proceedings' 'prosecution Conduct' 'threshold for Awarding Costs' 'criminal Appeals']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['costs in Criminal Proceedings' 'prosecution Conduct' 'threshold for Awarding Costs' 'criminal Appeals']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal / Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for costs following a successful appeal against conviction' 'Whether the requirements of s 70 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 are satisfied' 'Whether a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory threshold for awarding costs against the public prosecutor under s 70 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 was not reached; the alleged defects in investigation or prosecution conduct did not amount to unreasonableness or impropriety. Accordingly, the application for an order for costs is dismissed.

Court Disposition

The appellant's application for an order for costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application for an order for costs is dismissed."]