Morrison v Behrooz (N0 2)

In the matter of Morrison v Behrooz (No 2), the respondent, Behrooz, applied for costs following a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed by a magistrate. Behrooz had pleaded guilty to an offence of escaping immigration detention under section 197A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The magistrate had discharged Behrooz without conviction upon his entry into a recognizance of $100 to be of good behaviour for two years. The Crown appealed against the sentence, and the appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The legal issue that the court had to address was the allocation of costs in light of the Crown's success on most issues, despite the appeal being dismissed. The court noted that costs generally follow the event, but also recognised the importance of the respondent's pro bono representation. The court had to balance these considerations in determining the appropriate costs order.

The court ruled that while the Crown had been successful on the majority of the issues in the appeal, the overall merciful approach taken by the magistrate warranted the appeal being dismissed. Given the respondent's pro bono status, the court determined that the costs should be fixed at $750, to be paid by the appellant. This decision recognised both the Crown's success and the respondent's circumstances. The final order mandated that the appellant was to pay the respondent's costs, fixed at the amount determined by the court.