R v Parkes (Costs) - [2025] NSWDC 288

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Parkes (Costs) [2025] NSWDC 288
Date of orders: 5 August 2025
Decision date: 05 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
42 I make the following order: –
(1) I grant to Andre Parkes a certificate pursuant to ss 2 and 3 of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) in relation to the whole of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – costs – application for costs certificate – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – ss 2, 3, 3A – principles – not reasonable to institute proceedings – inconsistent identification evidence – unreliable evidence of victim witnesses – alibi evidence not investigated – reasonable alibi evidence

Legislation Cited:
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121
Beatson v R [2015] NSWCCA 17

Category: Costs
Parties: Rex
Andre Benjamin Parkes
Representation:
Counsel:
Amarande Chauvet (Applicant)
Dion Carnell (Crown)
Solicitors:
First Choice Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2022/00158614

JUDGMENT

The applicant makes an application for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) (‘the Act') following verdicts of not guilty on four counts. The verdicts were entered following a Judge-alone trial (special hearing): R v Parkes [2025] NSWDC 144 (Parkes).
The application is opposed by the Crown.

Background

On the night of 12 May 2022, George Beshara (Beshara) and Leanne Jones (Jones) were the victims of a violent home invasion at their home in Toongabbie perpetrated by two individuals.
There is no issue that one of the individuals, Lealofi Namulauulu (the co-offender), was involved in the home invasion whilst armed with a .38 super calibre pistol. The two intruders forced their way into the house. Beshara was assaulted by the two assailants before being forced by the second offender up the stairs and into a bedroom containing several safes.
In the meantime, Namulauulu remained in the downstairs living area of the house taking property, at gunpoint, from several victims, including Jones. At some point thereafter Namulauulu and Jones made their way upstairs and entered the same bedroom where the second offender was with Beshara. Beshara engaged in physical altercations with the second offender and Namulauulu. During this time, a shot was fired from the pistol resulting in a hole in the bedroom wall.
Namulauulu and his co-offender then fled the scene following which Beshara smashed the upper bedroom window before yelling out to ring the police.
Namulauulu pleaded guilty to several offences arising from the home invasion. The sentence hearing involved several witnesses, including the two victims, giving evidence on disputed facts.

The pertinent findings on the special hearing

It was the Crown case that the second offender was the applicant which was denied by him. The central issue was the identification of the applicant.
In entering verdicts of not guilty to each of the counts on the indictment, the Court made the following…

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 Parkes (Costs)

Details

AGLC: R v Parkes (Costs) [2025] NSWDC 288
Case: [2025] NSWDC 288
Decision Date: 05 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Parkes involved the applicant seeking a costs certificate in relation to the whole of the proceedings against him. The applicant, Andre Parkes, was charged with multiple counts of serious criminal offences. The dispute centred on the circumstances under which the applicant's prosecution should be considered not reasonable, and thus warrant a costs certificate under the relevant sections of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the prosecution was not reasonable due to inconsistent identification evidence, unreliable victim witness testimony, and the failure to investigate alibi evidence that was both reasonable and presented. The applicant argued that the prosecution should not have proceeded given the weaknesses in the evidence against him, and that these factors warranted a costs certificate.

The court considered the principles governing the grant of a costs certificate, particularly the provisions of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967. It examined the nature and weight of the evidence presented, the reliability of the identification evidence, and the reliability of the victim witnesses' testimonies. The court also assessed the significance of the uninvestigated alibi evidence and its potential impact on the proceedings. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution was not reasonable due to the aforementioned factors and granted the applicant a certificate for costs in relation to the whole of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

42 I make the following order: –

(1) I grant to Andre Parkes a certificate pursuant to ss 2 and 3 of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) in relation to the whole of the proceedings.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Parkes (Costs) [2025] NSWDC 288
Date of orders:	5 August 2025
Decision date:	05 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	42 I make the following order: – (1) I grant to Andre Parkes a certificate pursuant to ss 2 and 3 of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) in relation to the whole of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – costs – application for costs certificate – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – ss 2, 3, 3A – principles – not reasonable to institute proceedings – inconsistent identification evidence – unreliable evidence of victim witnesses – alibi evidence not investigated – reasonable alibi evidence
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121 Beatson v R [2015] NSWCCA 17
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Rex Andre Benjamin Parkes
Representation:	Counsel: Amarande Chauvet (Applicant) Dion Carnell (Crown) Solicitors: First Choice Legal (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2022/00158614