Mastrangelo v Reynolds

In the matter of Mastrangelo v Reynolds, the respondent appealed against the decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, which had ordered him to pay the costs of the first appeal after reducing his licence suspension period. The appellant, acting as the prosecution, had filed a further appeal against the order for the respondent's costs of the appeal, arguing that the respondent was not a successful defendant under the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA). The respondent argued that the appeal raised a question of law of exceptional public importance and therefore he was entitled to an indemnity certificate and an order for his costs of both appeals.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent was a successful defendant under the Act, and if not, whether he was entitled to an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA) and an order for his costs of both appeals under the Justices Act 1902 (WA). The court also had to decide whether the question raised by the appeal was of exceptional public importance.

The court held that the respondent was not a successful defendant as he had not succeeded in his appeal against the sentence for the traffic offence. However, the court found that the appeal raised a question of law of exceptional public importance as it involved the interpretation of the Official Prosecutions (Defendants' Costs) Act 1973 (WA) and the Suitors' Fund Act 1964 (WA). The court therefore set aside the order for costs of the first appeal and ordered that the respondent was entitled to an indemnity certificate in respect of his costs of both appeals and an order for his costs of the second appeal to be certified by a Registrar pursuant to s 219 of the Justices Act 1902 (WA). No order was made in favour of the prosecution regarding the costs of the first appeal. The appeal was allowed and the orders were made as outlined above.