DM v The Queen (No. 2)

In the matter of DM v The Queen (No. 2), the Appellant, DM, sought an order for the recovery of costs incurred in proceedings in the Local Court and the District Court. The dispute arose from a criminal case where the Appellant was acquitted of the charges against them. The Appellant argued that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, primarily due to the conflicting evidence provided by the complainant and the complainant's mother, as well as the lack of evidence sought from and provided by RM. Additionally, the Appellant contended that their credibility indicated a lack of truth in the complaint.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether there was a reasonable prospect of conviction, given the conflicting evidence and the credibility of the Appellant. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the costs incurred in both the Local Court and District Court proceedings were recoverable, including the costs of Queens Counsel, Junior Counsel, and Solicitors, as well as printing costs.

The court considered the conflicting evidence and the credibility of the Appellant, ultimately finding that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The court held that the conflicting evidence, the lack of evidence from RM, and the Appellant's credibility indicated that the truth of the complaint was unlikely. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the Appellant and ordered the Crown to pay the Appellant's solicitor within 28 days the sum of $40,568 on account of the applicant’s costs in this Court and in the Local Court.