R v Buttriss - [2024] NSWDC 234

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Buttriss [2024] NSWDC 234
Hearing dates: 9 February 2024, 7 June 2024, 18 June 2024
Date of orders: 18 June 2024
Decision date: 18 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) I grant a certificate under section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 with respect to the costs of the applicant.
(2)   That certificate shall specify that:
(a)   If the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and
(b)   There was no act or omission of the applicant that contributed to the institution of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CRIME – costs - application for costs following no further proceeding direction – whether reasonable to institute proceedings – application granted

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900, s 112(2)
Costs inCriminal Cases Act 1967, ss 2, 3

Cases Cited:
Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121

Category: Costs
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Grace Buttriss (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Pickins (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
Hammond Solicitors (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2022/00035936
Publication restriction: NIL

Judgment

The applicant makes an application for a certificate under the Costs inCriminal Cases Act 1967 (‘the Act’) following a direction by the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the DPP’) that no further proceeding is to be taken against the applicant.

Background

On 7 February 2022, the applicant was arrested and charged with various offences including an allegation that on 5 February 2022 she did break and enter the dwelling house of Jamie Geelan and thereafter committed a serious indictable offence, namely intimidation, in circumstances of aggravation namely that the applicant knew there was a person present within the dwelling house at the time, contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The applicant was subsequently committed for trial.
On 6 November 2023 the trial commenced with a jury of 12 at Campbelltown District Court and proceeded for a period of eight days.
At the close of the Crown case, an application for a directed verdict was refused. However, the DPP subsequently directed that no further proceedings take place, and the applicant was discharged from the indictment.

Applicable legal principles

The Act provides is as follows:

2 Certificate may be granted
(1) The Court or Judge or Magistrate in any proceedings relating to any offence, whether punishable summarily or upon indictment, may:
(a) where, after the commencement of a trial in the proceedings, a defendant is acquitted or discharged in relation to the offence concerned, or a direction is given by the Director of Public Prosecutions that no further proceedings be taken, or
(b) where, on appeal, the conviction of the defendant is quashed and:
(i) the defendant is discharged as to the indictment upon which he or she was convicted, or
(ii) the information or complaint upon which the defendant was convicted is dismissed,
grant to…

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 Buttriss

Details

AGLC: R v Buttriss [2024] NSWDC 234
Case: [2024] NSWDC 234
Decision Date: 18 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Buttriss, applied for costs following a direction of no further proceedings in relation to charges of murder. The application was heard by the court, which was required to determine whether it was reasonable for the prosecution to have instituted the proceedings, given the facts available at that time, and whether the applicant's actions contributed to the initiation of the proceedings. The court was also tasked with assessing the overall reasonableness of instituting the criminal proceedings in the first place.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, ultimately concluding that if the prosecution had been in possession of all relevant facts prior to the proceedings being instituted, it would not have been reasonable to do so. Furthermore, the court found that there was no act or omission on the part of the applicant that contributed to the institution of the proceedings. The court's reasoning was grounded in the circumstances surrounding the case, including the availability of information to the prosecution at the time the decision to prosecute was made.

Based on these findings, the court granted the applicant's application for costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The certificate issued by the court specified that it was not reasonable for the prosecution to have instituted the proceedings given the facts known at the time, and that the applicant did not contribute to the institution of the proceedings. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings are both reasonable and justifiable based on the available evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) I grant a certificate under section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 with respect to the costs of the applicant.

(2) That certificate shall specify that:

(a) If the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and

(b) There was no act or omission of the applicant that contributed to the institution of the proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Buttriss [2024] NSWDC 234
Hearing dates:	9 February 2024, 7 June 2024, 18 June 2024
Date of orders:	18 June 2024
Decision date:	18 June 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) I grant a certificate under section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 with respect to the costs of the applicant. (2) That certificate shall specify that: (a) If the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and (b) There was no act or omission of the applicant that contributed to the institution of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CRIME – costs - application for costs following no further proceeding direction – whether reasonable to institute proceedings – application granted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, s 112(2) Costs inCriminal Cases Act 1967, ss 2, 3
Cases Cited:	Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Grace Buttriss (Applicant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Pickins (Applicant) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown) Hammond Solicitors (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2022/00035936
Publication restriction:	NIL