DPP v Ivanovic
[2003] VSC 400
•2 October 2003
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1457 of 2002
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THOMAS IVANOVIC |
Ruling No. 13
---
JUDGE: | Cummins J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 October 2003 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 2 October 2003 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ivanovic | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2003] VSC 400 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Murder – Order pursuant to s 17(1) Appeal Costs Act 1998 for costs thrown away by adjournments.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director | Mr W. Morgan-Payler Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Richter Q.C. and Mr C. Rozencwajg | Theo Magazis |
HIS HONOUR:
[Published but not read aloud]
Finally before sentence I shall deal briefly with the application by senior counsel for the accused for a certificate pursuant to s.17(1) Appeal Costs Act 1998 for the costs of adjournments from 2 to 12 September 2003.
This charge was the subject of a jury trial before another Judge of this Court which commenced on 28 May 2003. Most unfortunately, on 5 June 2003 the learned Judge had to discharge the jury without verdict. That was through no fault of the accused or of his legal representatives.
The matter was listed before the Principal Judge for mention on 18 June 2003 and was listed for rehearing on 2 September 2003.
On 2 September 2003 the matter was listed as a Reserve Trial, formally before the Principal Judge. By reason of unavailability of judges, the trial could not proceed that day. His Honour formally ordered that the trial be adjourned to a date to be fixed. His Honour granted a certificate but stated that the ultimate trial judge could determine the extent of the certificate.
On 2 September 2003 the parties were offered a listing of not before 15 September 2003 or of waiting in the list. The latter was opted for.
In the event the matter came on before me on 15 September 2003, the parties having waited from day to day, as Mr Richter has informed me (T.636 l.17-18).
The defence has applied for a certificate for the 8 lost days being 3 September to 12 September, inclusive, plus 1 day, 2 September, being the day before Teague J and as to which His Honour has granted a certificate.
In the normal course I would not grant such an extensive certificate, especially given the limitation of public funds available. However in the particular circumstances of the history of this matter I consider it is proper to grant a certificate for the 9 days sought. Pre-eminent amongst the reasons for that conclusion is that the first trial was aborted through the fault of the Court (see Ruling No. 1 herein, para.2) and I consider that the burden of costs reasonably flowing from that unfortunate circumstance should not have to be borne by the defence.
Accordingly, I grant the certificate for the 9 days. I shall sign it when it is provided by the learned defence solicitor to my Associate.
0
0
0