R v Raymundo (No 2) - [2025] NSWCCA 128

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Raymundo (No 2) [2025] NSWCCA 128
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 19 August 2025
Decision date: 19 August 2025
Before: Stern JA; McHugh JA; Garling J
Decision:
The respondent’s application for a certificate under s 6(1) of the Suitors’ Fund Act1951 (NSW) be refused.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), s 6 — Where Crown brought appeal pursuant to Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3A) — Whether respondent contributed to circumstance in which he was required to meet expense of appeal — Where respondent defending trial proceedings while preparing to appear on appeal — Application refused

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 116, 137, 165
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), s 6

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v RDT(No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 66
R v Raymundo [2025] NSWCCA 109

Category: Costs
Parties: Rex (Appellant)
Christian Raymundo (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Cecilia Curtis (Appellant)
Michael Valentin (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Cruz & Partners Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/204662
Publication restriction: Nil.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

7 July 2025

Before:

Wass SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2024/204662

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed successfully pursuant to s 5F(3A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against a decision given ex tempore on 7 July 2025 by the trial judge, Wass SC DCJ (the Decision): R v Raymundo [2025] NSWCCA 109 (Principal Judgment). The Decision had excluded, pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), certain “recognition” evidence proposed to be given by the complainant at the trial of the respondent, Mr Christian Raymundo, on an indictment charging him, together with a co-accused, Mr Bobby Antonakos, with a single count of robbery in company.
The respondent sought a certificate under s 6(1) of the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) but advanced no submissions in support of such order at the hearing of the appeal. The Court directed that the parties exchange written submissions on that question, with that issue to be determined on the papers. Submissions were filed in accordance with the Court’s orders. For the following reasons that application should be refused.
The basis on which the respondent sought a certificate was as follows. First, he submitted that, except for filing a notice of motion to exclude evidence which he considered to be unfair, he did not directly contribute to the circumstance in which he had been required to meet the additional expense of appearing in a Crown appeal by virtue of an interlocutory decision made by the trial judge. Secondly, he said that he had been required to continue to defend the proceedings at first instance at the same time as preparing to appear in this Court, due to the trial judge’s decision to proceed with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Raymundo (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWCCA 128
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Raymundo (No 2) involved the Crown appealing a decision that had been made in the respondent's favour, Raymundo. The Crown brought the appeal pursuant to section 5F(3A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), challenging the outcome of the trial proceedings. The primary issue for the court was whether Raymundo had contributed to the circumstances that led him to incur the expense of the appeal, given that he had been defending the trial proceedings while also preparing to appear on appeal. The case raised questions about the appropriate circumstances under which costs should be awarded from the Suitors’ Fund under section 6 of the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).

The court examined the legal framework under which the Suitors’ Fund operates and considered whether Raymundo's dual role in defending the trial and preparing for the appeal met the criteria for incurring costs. The court analysed the legislative intent behind the provision, weighing Raymundo's need to defend the trial proceedings against the potential for costs to be met from the Suitors’ Fund. Ultimately, the court found that Raymundo's actions did not constitute a contribution to the circumstances that necessitated the appeal, and thus, he was not eligible for costs from the Suitors’ Fund.

Consequently, the Crown's application for Raymundo to be required to meet the expense of the appeal was refused. The court's decision underscored the stringent requirements for accessing the Suitors’ Fund and reinforced the principle that the fund is intended to assist those who genuinely need financial support to pursue or defend legal proceedings. The refusal of the application was based on the court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of Raymundo's case.

Orders