R v Buttriss

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.