Daniel Hayes v The Queen - [2019] NSWDC 196

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Daniel Hayes v R [2019] NSWDC 196
Hearing dates: 7 May 2019
Date of orders: 23 May 2019
Decision date: 23 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
I refuse the application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act

Catchwords: Crime - Costs
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129
Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCCA 121; 171 A Crim R 510
R v Greentree [2019] NSWSC 216
R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197
Category: Costs
Parties: Daniel Hayes (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms K Stares for the Applicant
Mr A Isaacs for the Respondent

File Number(s): 2017/385100
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

This is an application for the grant of a certificate under s 2, of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (hereafter the “Costs Act”), following the discontinuation by the Crown of proceedings in relation to a charge of “robbery in company”.
The relevant factual background is that the Applicant was due to stand trial in the District Court at Parramatta on 4 March 2019 on a charge of robbery in company. However, on 21 February 2019, a “No Bill” application was filed on behalf of the Applicant. On 1 March 2019, the DPP advised that the application was successful, and a direction had been given that no further proceedings be taken.
The charge arose from an allegation that on 28 July 2017, the 17 year old complainant was set upon by a number of males, who stole his motorbike. The complainant said he was initially approached by 3 young males on motorbikes, and that this occurred shortly after 4:30pm at Whalan Reserve. He identified one male as a person he knew as Daniel, or David, but was unable to identify the other males (it should be noted that this person “Daniel or David” is not alleged to have been this Applicant, Daniel Hayes). The complainant said that he commenced to run away, pushing his motorbike, but was hit in the back of the head, and fell to the ground. He said that he then felt a hand on his back, holding him to the ground, and saw his motorbike being lifted up by one of the males. The complainant said he was told to get up, and that one of the males started pulling him up, holding onto his jumper or shirt. He was, he said, then told to walk away, which he did because he was scared. The complainant said that shortly after this, he saw one of the motorbikes returning, with two males on it, and that after stopping next to the complainant’s motorbike, one of the males started the bike, and rode it away. The complainant reported the matter to police, and made a statement.
As part of the investigation, police obtained DNA from an item of the complainant’s clothing.…

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 Daniel Hayes v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Daniel Hayes v The Queen [2019] NSWDC 196
Case: [2019] NSWDC 196
Decision Date: 23 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daniel Hayes versus The Queen was heard in a criminal court in Australia. The applicant, Daniel Hayes, sought a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, which would allow him to claim costs incurred during his trial. The application was opposed by the Crown, represented by the Attorney-General. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant's application for a certificate was justified under the provisions of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.

The court was required to consider the criteria set out in the Act, including whether the applicant had been acquitted, whether the applicant had acted honestly and reasonably in bringing the proceedings, and whether the proceedings were brought for an improper purpose. The court also needed to assess whether the application was frivolous or vexatious. The applicant argued that he met the criteria for a certificate as he was acquitted of the most serious charges and had acted honestly and reasonably. The Crown argued that the application was frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed.

The court found that the applicant's application did not meet the criteria for a certificate under the Act. The court noted that the applicant had not been acquitted of all charges and that some of the charges were serious in nature. The court also found that the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing the proceedings and that the application was frivolous and vexatious. The court refused the application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The applicant was not entitled to claim costs incurred during his trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

I refuse the application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Daniel Hayes v R [2019] NSWDC 196
Hearing dates:	7 May 2019
Date of orders:	23 May 2019
Decision date:	23 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	I refuse the application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act
Catchwords:	Crime - Costs
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129 Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCCA 121; 171 A Crim R 510 R v Greentree [2019] NSWSC 216 R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Daniel Hayes (Applicant) Crown (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms K Stares for the Applicant Mr A Isaacs for the Respondent
File Number(s):	2017/385100
Publication restriction:	None