Legal Research
Cases
R v Meredith

R v Meredith

Case [2025] NSWDC 246 20 June 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Meredith [2025] NSWDC 246
Hearing dates: 20 June 2025
Date of orders: 20 June 2025
Decision date: 20 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett ADCJ
Decision:
The institution on the proceedings for the offences expressed in the Courts in the indictment to which the application relates for offences was not unreasonable.
The application is refused.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Judgement – Costs application – complainant’s evidence contradicted by evidence of others -

Legislation Cited:
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Criminal Procedure Act

Cases Cited:
Allerton v Director of Public Prosecutions (1991) 24 NSWLR 550.
Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs) [2022] NSWCCA 248.
Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82
Kamali v R : Mosawi v R ; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Mourdant v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121
Pavy CCA (NSW) 9 December 1997 (1997) 98 A Crim R 396
R v Bloomfield (unreported Judgement 21/06/2019 District Court).
R v Cardon [2002] NSWSC 823.
R v Dunne (unreported, NSWSC 17 May 1990, BC 9002442).
R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197.
R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291.
R v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247
R v Williams (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 145.
Reg v Williams; ex parte Williams [1970] 1 NSWR 81
Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196
RMC v R [2013] NSWCCA 285
Rodden -v-R [2023] NSWCCA 202.
R-v- Hannah Quinn [2021] NSWSC 494.
Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129.

Category: Costs
Parties: The Crown
Timothy William Meredith
Representation:
Counsel:
Michelle Swift - Crown
Linda McSpedden - Defence
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission

File Number(s): 2022/00143438
2022/00280631
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

This application is by Timothy William Meredith for a certificate pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 in response to the outcome in the first of two trials in the District Court Dubbo conducted back-to-back. After preliminary questions were considered the first trial commenced before judge and jury on 12 June 2024 and concluded on 27 June 2024 when the jury returned with verdicts of guilty upon three counts and not guilty of the remainder. Some of these were verdicts by direction. The second trial before judge alone followed and resulted in verdicts of guilty of nine counts and not guilty of the remaining nine counts.

The Trial

The trial before judge and jury upon allegations by two complainants, KN and JM, concluded on 27 June 2024 with verdicts of guilty upon three counts relevant to KN and not guilty of the other 24 counts brought upon further allegations by her and those of JM. All of the offences brought upon the allegations made by JM resulted in verdicts of not guilty either by direction or after…

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 Meredith

Details

AGLC: R v Meredith [2025] NSWDC 246
Case: [2025] NSWDC 246
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meredith involved a criminal proceeding against the defendant, Meredith, for various offences. The prosecution was based on the testimony of a complainant, but this was contested by other witnesses who provided conflicting accounts. The case was heard in the higher court, which had to determine the admissibility and weight of the complainant’s evidence in light of the other testimonies. The central issue before the court was whether the decision to proceed with the criminal charges against Meredith was reasonable, considering the contradictory nature of the evidence presented.

The court examined the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, as well as the testimonies of the other witnesses who contradicted it. The court considered whether the decision to proceed with the charges was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence available. The court also assessed whether the institution of the proceedings was justified, given the conflicting nature of the testimonies. Ultimately, the court had to determine whether the decision to proceed with the charges against Meredith was reasonable and justified under the circumstances.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that the decision to institute the proceedings against Meredith was not unreasonable. The court acknowledged the conflicting evidence but determined that the decision to proceed was based on a reasonable assessment of the available information. The court concluded that the decision to proceed with the charges was justified and reasonable, and therefore denied the application for costs. The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the case.

The court ordered that the application for costs in relation to the proceedings be refused. This decision reflects the court’s view that the institution of the proceedings was not unreasonable and that the decision to proceed was justified based on the evidence available at the time. The ruling underscores the importance of a balanced and reasoned approach in determining the admissibility and weight of conflicting evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The institution on the proceedings for the offences expressed in the Courts in the indictment to which the application relates for offences was not unreasonable.

The application is refused.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Meredith [2025] NSWDC 246

Most Recent Citation

Dudzinski v Spender [2008] QSC 50

Cases Citing This Decision

Dudzinski v Spender [2008] QSC 50
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…Although not referred to by Mr Dudzinski, s 13 of the Crimes Act enshrines the common law position that every person has an interest and is permitted to put the law in motion in criminal matters. The use of the expression “information” in s 686 merely reflects the historical distinction between the …
Putland v The Queen [2003] HCATrans 418
Citation 2

…To assist the Court, there are three new references I can give your Honours, which were provided to me by the learned Solicitor’s instructor this morning. The first is Fraser v The Queen (No 2) and Meredith v The Queen (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680, there dealing with the question of the meaning of info…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Rodden v R [2023] NSWCCA 202
Citation 1 (Para 95)

…In Rodden -v- R [2023] NSWCCA 202 the Court of Criminal Appeal did not expressly hold that once the conditions of s3(1)(a) of the Act were met there was no discretion in the court to refuse the costs application, however, in what is said to be strong obiter the Court tended to the view that in most circumstances the…
Constantinidis v The Queen; Lazar v The Queen (Costs) [2022] NSWCCA 248
Citation 2 (Para 87)

…In respect of JM attention was invited to Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs) [2022] NSWCCA 248 from which the following is quoted:…
Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82
Citation 3 (Para 86)

…will generally be reasonable for a prosecutor to allow questions of credibility in a word-on-word case to be decided by the jury: Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82 at [31]. However, in respect of the JM this was not such a case in which the credibility and reliability of the complainant would be quintessentially…
R v Hannah Quinn (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 494
Citation 4 (Para 97)

…is application, the 23 of the 27 counts on the indictment represent 85% of the total, ad in accordance with the approach adopted in R-v- Hannah Quinn [2021] NSWSC 494 the applicant should have 85% of his costs of the proceedings.…
R v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247
Citation 5

…n [2002] NSWSC 823. R v Dunne (unreported, NSWSC 17 May 1990, BC 9002442). R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197. R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291. R v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247 R v Williams (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 145. Reg v Williams; ex parte Williams [1970] 1 NSWR 81 Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196 RMC v R [2013] NSWC…
Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129
Citation 6 (Para 88)

…In Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129…
R v Moore [2015] NSWSC 1263
Citation 7 (Para 106)

…annot resist a certificate on the basis of ill-defined community interests in bringing a matter, before the courts: Manley at [18]; R v Moore [2015] NSWSC 1263 at [6(4)]; Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129 at [4(4)];…
Beatson v R [2015] NSWCCA 17
Citation 8 (Para 106)

…There is no prescription of what constitutes ‘unreasonableness’, and no single ‘bright line test’ to be applied: Beatson v R [2015] NSWCCA 17 at [14] Reasonableness cannot be determined by simply satisfying the Prosecution Guidelines , nor that there existed prima facie evidence to justify the arrest of the applica…
R v RMC [2013] NSWCCA 285
Citation 9

…Williams (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 145. Reg v Williams; ex parte Williams [1970] 1 NSWR 81 Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196 RMC v R [2013] NSWCCA 285 Rodden -v-R [2023] NSWCCA 202. R-v- Hannah Quinn [2021] NSWSC 494. Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129. Category: Costs Parties: The Crown Timothy W…
Kamali v The Queen; Mosawi v The Queen; Shahsawari v The Queen; Bejoushin v The Queen [2013] NSWSC 799
Citation 10 (Para 115)

…In Kamali v R : Mosawi v R ; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799, the Court granted a costs certificate when the complainant wished to cease proceedings before completing her evidence-in-chief and the Director terminated those proceedings.…
R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291
Citation 11 (Para 89)

…In R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291 “all the relevant facts” was considered with reference to in R v Williams (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 145:…
Wentworth v Rogers & Anor [2007] HCATrans 747
Citation 12

…s or her behalf, whether by an employer, trade union, insurer, family member or supporter: cf. Wentworth v Rogers (2006) 66 NSWLR 474; [2006] NSWCA 145 at [104]. That will not ordinarily result in the denial of an award of costs. Indeed, in many cases, the detail of a party’s funding arrangements will be entirely unkn…
Mordaunt v DPP [2007] NSWCA 121
Citation 13 (Para 77)

…Counsel quoted the following passage from the judgement of McColl JA in Mordaunt v DPP [2007] NSWCA 121 at [35(f)] (citations excluded):…
Kutchera v R [2007] NSWCCA 121
Citation 14

…ggins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82 Kamali v R : Mosawi v R ; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Mourdant v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121 Pavy CCA (NSW) 9 December 1997 (1997) 98 A Crim R 396 R v Bloomfield (unreported Judgement 21/06/2019 District Court). R v Cardon [2002] NSWSC 823. R v Dunne…
Wentworth v Rogers [2006] NSWCA 145
Citation 15

…o be paid for on his or her behalf, whether by an employer, trade union, insurer, family member or supporter: cf. Wentworth v Rogers (2006) 66 NSWLR 474; [2006] NSWCA 145 at [104]. That will not ordinarily result in the denial of an award of costs. Indeed, in many cases, the detail of a party’s funding arrangements will be…
R v Cardona [2002] NSWSC 823
Citation 16 (Para 91)

…In R v Cardon [2002] NSWSC 823:…
Regina v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334
Citation 17

…A helpful summary of authorities on the approach to that question is to be found in the judgment of Simpson J in R v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334 and paragraphs 8-11. Although reference was made in submissions to material in possession of the Crown prior to trial, it is sufficient for present purposes to consider whet…
R v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196
Citation 18 (Para 2)

…nt in which earlier rigid resistance to the reimbursement of costs incurred by an acquitted defendant was diminished: Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196 at [74] (Simpson J).…
R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197
Citation 19 (Para 104)

…t the burden of showing that it was not reasonable to institute the proceedings: R v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196 at [15] per Wood CJ at CL; R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197 at [17], [29] per Simpson J (Wood CJ at CL agreeing)…
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11
Citation 20

…very possibility of an adverse costs order focuses the mind of the moving party in commencing the proceedings or laying charges: see Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 at [68] per McHugh J (Oshlack). Although more difficult to obtain in criminal proceedings because of the gateway imposed by s 3(1), the Cos…
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…n criminal cases only in exceptional circumstances, and the where costs follow the event as a matter of course such as emanated from Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, after which legislation was introduced to ameliorate the impact of that decision upon unsuccessful prosecutions to the benefit of persons acquitted…
Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford & Anor [1880] UKHL 1
Citation 22

…for us to do so. It suffices to observe that, if the word “may” in s 2, on its proper construction and in accordance with the principles in Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214, in fact means “must”, none of the primary judge’s analysis would be relevant as the sole exercise for the Court or a judge or magistrate called…
Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214
Citation 23

…observe that, if the word “may” in s 2, on its proper construction and in accordance with the principles in Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214, in fact means “must”, none of the primary judge’s analysis would be relevant as the sole exercise for the Court or a judge or magistrate called upon to grant…

Legislation Cited

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 123)
Criminal Proceedings Act 1967 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Meredith [2025] NSWDC 246
Hearing dates:	20 June 2025
Date of orders:	20 June 2025
Decision date:	20 June 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett ADCJ
Decision:	The institution on the proceedings for the offences expressed in the Courts in the indictment to which the application relates for offences was not unreasonable. The application is refused.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgement – Costs application – complainant’s evidence contradicted by evidence of others -
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Criminal Procedure Act
Cases Cited:	Allerton v Director of Public Prosecutions (1991) 24 NSWLR 550. Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs) [2022] NSWCCA 248. Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82 Kamali v R : Mosawi v R ; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Mourdant v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121 Pavy CCA (NSW) 9 December 1997 (1997) 98 A Crim R 396 R v Bloomfield (unreported Judgement 21/06/2019 District Court). R v Cardon [2002] NSWSC 823. R v Dunne (unreported, NSWSC 17 May 1990, BC 9002442). R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197. R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291. R v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247 R v Williams (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 145. Reg v Williams; ex parte Williams [1970] 1 NSWR 81 Regina v Jonathon Harold MANLEY [2000] NSWCCA 196 RMC v R [2013] NSWCCA 285 Rodden -v-R [2023] NSWCCA 202. R-v- Hannah Quinn [2021] NSWSC 494. Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129.
Category:	Costs
Parties:	The Crown Timothy William Meredith
Representation:	Counsel: Michelle Swift - Crown Linda McSpedden - Defence Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission
File Number(s):	2022/00143438 2022/00280631
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants.