R v KT - [2009] NSWDC 224

CITATION: R v KT [2009] NSWDC 224

HEARING DATE(S): 15 June 2009
16 June 2009
17 June 2009
20 July 2009
23 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett SC DCJ

DECISION: Grant a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminals Cases Act 1967.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – costs – costs certificate

LEGISLATION CITED: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED: Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCCA 121
R v Dunne (Unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, 17 May 1990)
R v John Fejsa (1995) 82 A Crim R 253
R v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334
R v McFarlane (Unreported, Supreme Court, 12 August 1994)
R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203
R v Pavy (1997) 98 A Crim R 396
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; 2 A Crim R 45

PARTIES: The Crown
KT

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009 / 00005073

COUNSEL: Paul Hogan (For the Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Roger Kimbell (For the Crown)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
2009/5073

BENNETT SC DCJ

Thursday 23 July 2009

R v KT
JUDGEMENT ON APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO THE COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES ACT 1967, SECTION 2

Introduction

1 On 15 June 2009 the Applicant appeared for trial upon an indictment containing one count contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence charged is included in the definition of prescribed sexual offence in s 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Accordingly, the evidence of the complainant was presented in camera, and I made an order proscribing the publication of her name or any information that would allow her identification. In keeping with that course, I shall hereinafter refer to her by her initials or the term “complainant”.

2 Moreover, as the Applicant was acquitted at the conclusion of the Crown case, I shall not refer to him by name, the citation for this judgement will use his initials.

3 The Crown alleged that Applicant,

On or about 2 November 2008 at North Strathfield, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with A F without the consent of A F and knowing that she was not consenting.

4 The Applicant pleaded not guilty and a jury was selected. The trial proceeded until the close of the Crown case on 17 June 2009, whereupon counsel for the Applicant asked in the absence of the jury that I inform them of their right to return a verdict of not guilty at that point in accordance with the principle enunciated in R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; 2 A Crim R 45.

5 I accepted the submission and when jury returned to the courtroom I directed them as requested. They retired and returned shortly thereafter to deliver their verdict of not guilty. Thereupon they were discharged from further service, and as there was no reason for the Applicant to be further…

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 KT

Details

AGLC: R v KT [2009] NSWDC 224
Case: [2009] NSWDC 224
Decision Date: 23 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v KT involved the defendant, KT, who was charged with various criminal offences. The dispute centred on the costs that should be awarded to the prosecution following the defendant's acquittal. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution applied for a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, which would allow them to recover costs from the defendant.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the prosecution had demonstrated that the charges brought against the defendant were reasonable and whether the proceedings were conducted in a manner that was fair and just. The court was required to consider the nature and seriousness of the charges, the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the parties during the proceedings. The court also needed to assess whether the prosecution had acted with due diligence and whether the defendant's conduct contributed to the length or complexity of the case.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the prosecution had met the threshold for a costs certificate. The charges were reasonable given the circumstances, and the proceedings were conducted in a fair and just manner. The court noted the seriousness of the charges and the complexity of the case, as well as the prosecution's due diligence in pursuing the matter. The court also found that the defendant's conduct did not significantly contribute to the length or complexity of the case. As a result, the court granted the prosecution's application for a costs certificate.

The final orders of the court were to grant a certificate pursuant to section 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, allowing the prosecution to recover costs from the defendant. This decision provides clarity on the court's approach to determining costs in criminal cases following an acquittal and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminals Cases Act 1967.

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.

CITATION:	R v KT [2009] NSWDC 224
HEARING DATE(S):	15 June 2009 16 June 2009 17 June 2009 20 July 2009 23 July 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	23 July 2009
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Bennett SC DCJ
DECISION:	Grant a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminals Cases Act 1967.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – costs – costs certificate
LEGISLATION CITED:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
CASES CITED:	Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCCA 121 R v Dunne (Unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, 17 May 1990) R v John Fejsa (1995) 82 A Crim R 253 R v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334 R v McFarlane (Unreported, Supreme Court, 12 August 1994) R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203 R v Pavy (1997) 98 A Crim R 396 R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; 2 A Crim R 45
PARTIES:	The Crown KT
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009 / 00005073
COUNSEL:	Paul Hogan (For the Applicant)
SOLICITORS:	Roger Kimbell (For the Crown)