Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129

Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129

A certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1968 should be granted because, had the Crown known the full extent of the unreliability in the complainant’s evidence before commencing proceedings, it would not have been reasonable to prosecute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Costs Certificate After Successful Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Certificate for costs granted.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases Act Certificate' 'unreasonableness of Prosecution' 'credit of Principal Witness']
['criminal Law'] ['costs in Criminal Cases Act Certificate' 'unreasonableness of Prosecution' 'credit of Principal Witness']

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

Appeal / Application for Costs Certificate After Successful Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act should be granted when the conviction was quashed and the prosecution found unreasonable due to unreliable evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

A certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1968 should be granted because, had the Crown known the full extent of the unreliability in the complainant’s evidence before commencing proceedings, it would not have been reasonable to prosecute.

Court Disposition

Certificate for costs granted.

Orders

  • ['A certificate under the Costs in Criminal Case Act 1968 is granted specifying that, had the prosecution been in possession of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and that any act or omission of the defendant that contributed, or might have contributed, to the...