Currie, J.K. v The Queen - [1992] FCA 180

JUDGMENT NO. g pay*,;

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) 1
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY i

) No. ACT G 4 of 1992

DISTRICT REGISTRY

) )
GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: JAMES KENNETH CURRIE

Applicant
AND: THE OUEEN
Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER : Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER 14 April 1992
WHERE MADE Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the appllcat~on filed on 19 March 1992
be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

) No. ACT G 4 of 1992
DISTRICT REGISTRY )
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: JAMES KENNETH CURRIE

Applicant
AND: THE OUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: Neaves J.

m: 14 April 1992

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

James Kenneth Currie ("the applicant") has applied to this Court for an order described in the application as an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 20 February 1992. In truth, it is an application under Order 52, rule 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules for leave to file and serve a notice of appeal from that judgment: see Jess v. Scott (1986) 12

F.C.R. 187 at pp.187-8.

It is necessary for the applicant to seek such leave as a notice of appeal was not filed and served wlthin the time prescribed by Order 52, rule 15(l)(a) and an application to extend the time so prescribed was not made by motion within that time pursuant to Order 52, rule 15(l)(b). It is, therefore, necessary for the applicant to show that there are "special reasons" for the grantlng of leave.

On 17 February 1992, the applicant was arraigned in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory upon an indictment signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory charging him with an offence against s.92L(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.) in its application in the Territory. After a trial before a judge and jury, the applicant was, on 20 February 1992, found not guilty of the offence charged.

Before the applicant was discharged, his counsel informed the learned trial judge that he was instructed to make an application for an order for the payment of the applicant's costs of the trial. Counsel frankly informed his Honour that, in the light of the authorities, he was bound to refuse the application. He referred to s.15 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 (Cth) and to the

decision of a Full Court of this Court in Z1, v. (1988) 19

F.C.R. 212. Reference was also made to the decision of the High Court in Latoudis v. Casey (1990) 170 C.L.R. 534. That

case, however, concerned the scope of the discretionary power

to award costs in criminal proceedings in a court of summary

jurisdiction.

Section 15 of the Australian Capital Territory

Supreme Court Act provides:

"(l)…

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.

Continue reading Currie, J.K. v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Currie, J.K. v The Queen [1992] FCA 180
Case: [1992] FCA 180
Decision Date: 14 Apr 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currie v The Queen involves an application by James Kenneth Currie, the applicant, for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Supreme Court had dismissed an application by the applicant for costs following his acquittal on a criminal charge. The applicant seeks to challenge this decision in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for granting leave to appeal against the Supreme Court's decision, particularly given the statutory framework governing costs in criminal proceedings and the established practice within the Australian Capital Territory regarding costs in such matters.

The court examined the statutory provision under section 15 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, which vests discretion in the Supreme Court regarding the award of costs, subject to certain limitations and the practice in criminal proceedings. The court also considered the general principle that, in criminal cases, the Crown neither seeks nor pays costs, a principle that has been consistently upheld by both lower and higher courts. The court further assessed the applicant's affidavits and the relevant authorities, including the Full Court decision in R v Goia and the High Court case of Latoudis v Casey, which did not alter the established practice concerning costs in criminal proceedings.

The court concluded that no special reasons had been demonstrated that warranted granting the applicant leave to appeal the Supreme Court's decision. The long-standing practice, supported by legislative intent and judicial precedent, precluded the award of costs to the applicant in the circumstances presented. The court emphasized that any change to this practice would require legislative action rather than judicial intervention. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders