R v Greentree

In this case, the respondent, Greentree, was charged with accessory after the fact to murder. The accused had agreed to assist a friend by collecting her children from school, unaware that his friend had just killed her ex-husband. The prosecution's case relied entirely on the evidence of a single witness, whose credibility was seriously undermined. There was no other evidence suggesting that the accused knew of the homicide. The proceedings were discontinued partway through the trial, and the respondent sought a certificate for legal costs.

The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of being acquitted at the time the criminal proceedings were instituted. The court needed to consider whether the evidence, which was unreliable and insufficient on its own, could have led a hypothetical prosecutor with the wisdom of hindsight to bring the case to trial.

The court granted the certificate, acknowledging that it was appropriate to do so. The evidence was deemed so unreliable and lacking in corroboration that it did not support a reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecution conceded that the certificate was appropriate, given the circumstances. The court agreed, finding that the circumstances did not present a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The court's decision was based on the unreliability of the single witness and the absence of any other evidence linking the respondent to the knowledge of the homicide. The hypothetical prosecutor, equipped with hindsight, would not have proceeded with the case, leading the court to conclude that the respondent had a reasonable prospect of acquittal. The certificate for legal costs was granted in light of these findings.