R v DG

Case [2024] NSWDC 72


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v DG [2024] NSWDC 72
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 15 March 2024
Decision date: 15 March 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Application allowed. For orders see [44]

Catchwords:

Criminal procedure – costs – application for certificate pursuant Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967

Legislation Cited:

Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs) [2022] NSWCCA 248

Cox v R (No. 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129

Fejsa v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 253

Higgins v R (No. 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82

Mordaunt v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121

R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197

R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203; [2000] NSWCCA 196

Category:Costs
Parties: DG (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Carroll (Applicant)
T McCarthy (Respondent)

Solicitors:
M Sten (Applicant)
L Velcic (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/00007835
Publication restriction: s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication of the name of the complainant

JUDGMENT on costs application

  1. The applicant seeks an order that the court grant a certificate pursuant to s2(1)(a) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (“the Act”) in respect of proceedings in both the Local Court and District Court. The draft certificate for costs states that the applicant was committed from the Waverley Local Court on 16 January 2020 to stand trial on the following charges:-

  1. Indecent assault on CG between 06/80 and 07/80 (s81);

  2. Indecent assault on CG between 01/80 and 12/81 (s81);

  3. Sexual assault of CG between Dec 85 (s61E(1));

  4. Sexual intercourse with CG under authority Nov 86 (s66C(2));

  5. Sexual intercourse with CG under authority Dec 86 (s66C(2));

  6. Sexual intercourse with CG under authority Jan 87 (s66C(2));

  7. Indecent assault on CG under authority Jan 87 (s61E(1A));

  8. Sexual intercourse with CG under authority Jul 87 (s66C(2));

  9. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm on CG Jan 81 (s61);

  10. Common assault on CG Jan 81 (s61);

  11. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm on CG between Jan 82 to Dec 86 (s59(1));

  12. Aggravated indecent assault under authority between 03/91 to 12/91 (s61M(1));

  13. Indecent assault on CG under authority Mar 86 to Dec 90 (s61E(1A)), and

  14. Maintain unlawful relationship with child between Jan 82 to Dec 91 (s66EA(1)).

  1. The applicant stood her trial on 21 July 2022 and on 4 August 2022 the jury returned not guilty verdicts for Counts 1 and 11 on the Indictment. That jury was discharged on 8 August 2022 before delivering verdicts on the remaining charges due to 5 members of the jury contracting COVID.

  2. On 2 September 2022 the Director of Public Prosecutions refused a no bill application and a second trial commenced on 9 October 2023 on an Indictment containing ten counts. On 19 October 2023 the applicant was acquitted of all counts on the Indictment.

  3. On 19 October 2023 counsel for the applicant indicated that this application was to be made and I made directions for the…

Continue reading R v DG

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DG [2024] NSWDC 72
Case
[2024] NSWDC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DG involved a defendant who was appealing the costs awarded to the prosecution in a criminal matter. The defendant contested the costs order and sought a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The court was required to determine whether the certificate should be granted, given the defendant's financial situation and the nature of the case.

The central legal issue was whether the defendant's application for a certificate should be allowed, as per the provisions of the Act. The court had to consider the defendant's ability to pay the costs and whether it was just and equitable to grant the certificate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's financial circumstances. The court also needed to assess if the prosecution's costs were reasonable and necessary.

In delivering the decision, the court carefully examined the defendant's financial situation and the proportionality of the costs awarded. The court found that the defendant was unable to pay the costs, and it was just and equitable to grant the certificate. The prosecution's costs were deemed reasonable and necessary for the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the court allowed the application and made orders for the certificate to be granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed. For orders see [44]

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.