Alkaisi v WA Police - [2024] WASC 511 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   ALKAISI -v- WA POLICE [2024] WASC 511 (S)
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   10 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1047 of 2024
BETWEEN:   ALIA ABDUL-HASSAN ABDUL-JALIL ALKAISI
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1047 of 2024
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE B TYERS
File Number            :   EX 62 of 2023

Catchwords:

Single judge appeal - Costs of trial where convicted appellant successful on appeal - No new principles

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA)
Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA)

Result:

Respondent ordered to pay appellant’s costs in the sum of $132.10

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No appearance
Respondent	:	Ms A Kildea

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403
Edmunds v Starling [2013] WASCA 225; (2013) 235 A Crim R 182
Hunter v City of Joondalup [2016] WASC 444 (S)
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd [1992] HCA 28; (1992) 174 CLR 178

FORRESTER J:

Background

On 17 December 2024, I allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction and set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence, and the costs order made against her in the Magistrates Court proceedings.
The appellant was self‑represented at her trial and the appeal, but nonetheless sought an order for costs in her favour as a result of the decision.
On the basis that the appellant might have been able to substantiate an application to recover some of her costs of the proceedings and her appeal, namely disbursements, I ordered that the parties file any affidavit material and written submissions, and that the application would then be dealt with on the papers.

Affidavit and materials filed by appellant

The appellant has filed:
(a)an invoice showing that she was charged disbursements by the Department of Justice in relation to this matter, being for copies of the transcript and documents in the sum of $132.10;
(b)invoices from the Department of Justice for copies of documents in matters other than this matter;
(c)an Officeworks receipt for file covers in the sum of $59.18;
(d)an invoice for the printing of 400 pages dated 12 October 2023, totalling $120;[1]
(e)a further invoice for printing dated 14 April 2023 for $18.37;[2]
(f)a table which lists work she has claimed to have done between 19 May 2023 and 24 November 2024, and how long she spent doing that work, totalling approximately 240 hours (in her written submissions she claims 370 hours);

(g)screenshots of a banking application, showing expenditure on various items, including rideshare expenses and payments to the Department of Justice;[3]
(h)a number of documents generated by the Western Australia Police Force (WA Police) relating to other incidents involving police, which are unrelated to the charge which was the subject of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alkaisi v WA Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] WASC 511 (S)
Decision Date: 10 FEBRUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alkaisi v WA Police involved the appellant challenging the costs of his trial. The appellant was convicted of drug-related offences but successfully appealed against his conviction. The appellant contended that the costs of his trial should be paid by the respondent, the Western Australia Police, due to the outcome of the appeal. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and subsequently appealed to a single judge on the issue of costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant, having succeeded in his appeal against conviction, was entitled to have the costs of his trial paid by the respondent. The court considered whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the respondent bearing the costs of the trial. The court also examined whether the appeal had any merit and if the appellant's success on appeal warranted a departure from the usual rule that the appellant bears their own costs.

The court found that the appeal did not introduce any new principles of law or significantly alter the existing legal framework. The appeal was considered to have some merit but did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances that would warrant the respondent bearing the costs of the trial. The court emphasised that the usual rule applied, and the appellant should bear the costs of his trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the primary judge regarding costs was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. The appellant was required to bear the costs of his trial, and the respondent was not ordered to pay any costs associated with the appeal.

Orders