CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Brady (costs)

The case involved a dispute between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) concerning the costs incurred in a criminal proceeding that was ultimately permanently stayed as an abuse of process. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, where the legal issues centred on the applicability of statutory and inherent powers to order costs in favour of successful stay applicants, particularly in a context where the ACC had joined the stay application as an intervener. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the ACC qualified as a juristic entity susceptible to a costs order, and if so, the principles governing the imposition of costs against such an intervener.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986, particularly section 24, which provides for the court's discretion in ordering costs. The court noted that although there was no explicit statutory authority for ordering costs against the CDPP or the ACC in such circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction of the court allows it to order costs where it is deemed just and equitable. The court found that the ACC, as a government agency, qualified as a juristic entity and was thus amenable to a costs order. The principles guiding the imposition of costs against an intervener were considered, and the court concluded that it was appropriate to order the costs of the stay application against the CDPP and the ACC jointly and severally.

In light of the court's findings, the final orders were that the costs of the stay application were to be borne by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Crime Commission jointly and severally. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the principles of justice and equity were upheld in the allocation of costs, particularly in cases involving public entities engaged in criminal proceedings. This decision underscores the court's flexibility in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to manage costs in complex legal scenarios.