R v Dillon; R v Locke; R v Taylor

The defendants, Dillon, Locke, and Taylor, were each acquitted of charges of murder and manslaughter by a jury. They subsequently applied for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), seeking reimbursement of costs incurred in their defence. The Crown's case against each defendant was heavily reliant on the testimony of a single eyewitness. In relation to one of the defendants, Dillon, the eyewitness had previously provided a false account of his involvement in the events. The investigating police had failed to properly investigate this false account. The court was required to determine whether, had the prosecution been aware of all the relevant facts, it would have been reasonable to proceed with the charges against each defendant.

The court considered whether the prosecution had all the relevant facts at the time the decision to prosecute was made. It was found that, in relation to Dillon, the false account provided by the eyewitness would have significantly undermined the reliability of the evidence against him. The failure of the police to properly investigate this matter further weakened the case against Dillon. The court concluded that, had the prosecution known of the eyewitness's false account, it would not have been reasonable to proceed with the charges against Dillon. However, with respect to Locke and Taylor, the court found that the prosecution would still have had a reasonable basis to proceed with the charges against them, despite the issues with the eyewitness's testimony.

The application for a certificate was granted in relation to Dillon, as the court found it would not have been reasonable for the prosecution to proceed with the charges against him given the circumstances. The applications were dismissed in relation to Locke and Taylor, as the court found the prosecution would still have had a reasonable basis to proceed with the charges against them. The court emphasised the importance of proper investigation and the need for police to diligently follow up on potentially exculpatory evidence. The decision highlights the consequences that may arise when the police fail to properly investigate and the potential impact on the accused's right to a fair trial.