Legal Research
Cases
R v Byrnes

R v Byrnes

Case [2019] NSWSC 616 30 May 2019

Costs

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 616
Hearing dates: 15 – 18, 22 – 26, 29 – 31 October 2018, 1, 5 – 6, 9 November 2018
Date of orders: 30 May 2019
Decision date: 30 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) Application for a certificate under s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) is dismissed.

Catchwords: COSTS – costs in criminal cases – acquittal of applicant by directed verdict – court discretion exercised to disallow particular evidence of guilt – use of that evidence under s 3A of the Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (NSW) – able to be used – not unreasonable to prosecute given all the evidence
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (NSW), ss 2, 3
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38
Cases Cited: AB v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2014] NSWCA 122
Allerton v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1991) 24 NSWLR 550
Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCA 121
R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 615
R v Hull (1989) 16 NSWLR 385
R v Rossi-Murray; R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 479
R v Zraika [2019] NSWSC 598
Category: Costs
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Bradley James Byrnes (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
H White (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
PW & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/00212466

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Bradley Byrnes was acquitted of accessory after the fact to murder. The acquittal was a verdict directed by the Court, as presently constituted. Mr Byrnes applies for a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (NSW) (hereinafter “the Act”).
Mr Byrnes was said to have assisted Mr Rossi-Murray, with whom he was being tried. Mr Rossi-Murray was convicted of manslaughter, after trial before a jury.

Directed Verdict

On 6 November 2018, after hearing the parties on the application for a directed verdict, the Court delivered an ex tempore judgment (R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 615) (hereinafter “the Directed Verdict”) granting the application on behalf of Mr Byrnes and, as a consequence of that judgment, directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty of accessory after the fact to murder and not guilty of accessory after the fact to manslaughter. That occurred, as is necessary, after the conclusion of all of the Crown evidence.
It should be reiterated that the principles, in relation to a directed verdict, have been adumbrated on a number of occasions and the classic authorities in which the principles are discussed are Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51 and Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 (“JMR”).
The basis that the Court determined to direct a verdict of acquittal is…

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 Byrnes

Details

AGLC: R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 616
Case: [2019] NSWSC 616
Decision Date: 30 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the applicant, Byrnes, who was charged with various offences. Byrnes was acquitted by a directed verdict. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary issue was whether the prosecution could use particular evidence of guilt to argue for costs under section 3A of the Costs in Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (NSW). The court needed to determine whether the prosecution's use of this evidence was reasonable, given Byrnes' acquittal and the fact that the evidence was disallowed by the court during the trial.

The court examined the circumstances in which the evidence was disallowed and whether the prosecution had a reasonable basis for pursuing the charges. It also considered the overall context of the case, including the nature of the evidence and the reasons for its exclusion. The court concluded that it was not unreasonable for the prosecution to have proceeded with the charges given the totality of the evidence presented at the time. This finding was crucial in determining the proportionality of costs and whether the evidence could be used under the Act.

In reaching its decision, the court exercised its discretion carefully, weighing the importance of protecting the rights of the accused against the need to ensure that the prosecution can be adequately funded in appropriate circumstances. The court found that the evidence could indeed be used to support a costs application, as the prosecution's decision to proceed was not unreasonable in light of the evidence available at the time. This conclusion aligned with the legislative intent to balance the interests of both parties in criminal proceedings.

The court's decision was that the prosecution could use the disallowed evidence to support its application for costs under section 3A of the Act. This ruling allowed the prosecution to seek reimbursement for some of the costs incurred in bringing the case to trial. The court's careful consideration of the evidence and the context of the case ensured that the outcome was fair and just, reflecting the principles of proportionality and reasonableness in the allocation of costs in criminal proceedings.

Orders