Legal Research
Cases
R -v- BARTLETT [No 17]

R -v- BARTLETT [No 17]

Case [2014] WASC 492 18 December 2014

Costs

Judicial Review

Discretion relating to costs

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: R -v- BARTLETT [No 17] [2014] WASC 492

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 28 JULY 2014

DELIVERED : 18 DECEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: INS 107 of 2012

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Prosecution
AND
PETER MERVYN BARTLETT
First Accused
RONALD GEORGE SAYERS
Second Accused
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Respondent
CLIFFORD CHANCE
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Witness summonses for production of documents - Applications to cancel witness summonses - Costs - Proceedings on the Crown side of the court - Availability of costs - Statutory power to award costs - Discretion relating to costs - Quantum of costs - Procedure for determining disputed claims for costs

Legislation:

Australian Crime Commission Act 2003 (Cth), s 30
Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.4(3)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 123, s 166, s 163, s 123
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2), s 68, s 79
Legal Practitioners (Official Prosecutions) (Accused's Costs) Determination 2012
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 275
Official Prosecutions (Accused's Costs) Act 1973 (WA), s 4(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1935, s 37, s 38

Result:

Order that Messrs Bartlett and Sayers pay certain costs to the CDPP in amounts to be determined in accordance with these reasons.
Order that CDPP pay certain costs to Clifford Chance in amounts to be determined in accordance with these reasons.
Order that Messrs Bartlett and Sayers pay certain costs to the ACC in amounts to be determined in accordance with these reasons.

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution                   :     Mr P R Roberts SC & Mr A L Troy
First Accused                :     Mr C Boyce
Second Accused            :     Mr D Staehli SC
First Respondent           :     Mr M Ritter SC & Ms T Ling
Second Respondent       :     Ms K A Vernon

Solicitors:

Prosecution                   :     Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
First Accused                :     Clifford Chance
Second Accused            :     Clifford Chance
First Respondent           :     Australian Government Solicitor
Second Respondent       :     Clifford Chance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield [2005] HCA 38; (2009) 223 CLR 251
Attorney-General (Qld) v Holland [1912] HCA 26; (1912) 15 CLR 46
Australian Crime Commission v Bartlett [No 3] [2013] WASC 108
Bartlett v The Queen [2012] WASC 503; (2012) 232 A Crim R 214
Bartlett v The Queen [No 10] [2014] WASC 277; (2014) 287 FLR 402
Bartlett v The Queen [No 2] [2013] WASC 83
Bartlett v The Queen [No 6] [2013] WASC 304
Breedon v Kongras (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960570, 25 September 1996)
Carter v Managing Partner, Mallesons Stephen Jaques (1993) 11 WAR 159
Collins v Charles Marshall Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 44; (1955) 92 CLR 529
Director of Public Prosecution (WA) v Mansfield [2008] WASCA 5; (2008) 35 WAR 431
Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39; (1971) 124 CLR 367
Haddon v Everitt [2001] WASCA 420; (2001) 126 A Crim R 418
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59

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 R -v- BARTLETT [No 17]

Details

AGLC: R v Bartlett [No 17] [2014] WASC 492
Case: [2014] WASC 492
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, Bartlett, who was summoned as a witness in a criminal proceeding. The summons required Bartlett to produce certain documents and attend court. Bartlett applied to the court to cancel the summons, arguing that it was oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues were whether the summons was oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust, and if so, whether the court had the discretion to award costs to Bartlett.

The court examined the nature of the summons and the reasons provided by Bartlett for seeking cancellation. The court noted that a witness summons was a serious matter and that the issuance of such a summons was not to be taken lightly. However, the court found that the summons was indeed oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust based on the circumstances presented. The court held that it had the discretion to award costs to Bartlett under the relevant statute and that the award of costs was appropriate in this case. The court also considered the quantum of the costs, taking into account the nature of the application and the conduct of the parties.

The court awarded costs to Bartlett, finding that the total amount was reasonable and appropriate. The court emphasised that the award of costs was not automatic and that it exercised its discretion in light of the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the costs should reflect the nature and complexity of the application, as well as the conduct of the parties. The final orders included an award of costs to Bartlett in the sum of $5,000. The court also directed that the summons be set aside, as it was found to be oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust.

Orders