R v Rouse (No 2)
[1990] TASSC 68
•29 October 1990
Serial No 67/1990
List "A"
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: R v Rouse (No 2) [1990] TASSC 68; A67/1990
PARTIES: R
v
ROUSE, Edmund Alexander
FILE NO/S: CCA25/1990
DELIVERED ON: 29 October 1990
DELIVERED AT: Hobart
JUDGMENT OF: Cox, Underwood and Wright JJ
Judgment Number: A67/1990
Number of paragraphs: 5
Serial No 67/1990
List "A"
File No CCA25/1990
R v EDMUND ALEXANDER ROUSE (NO 2)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
COX J
UNDERWOOD J
WRIGHT J
29 October 1990
While there is statutory authority for the payment of costs by the convicted person of his prosecution and trial and by either party to an appeal or application for leave to appeal, the practice of the court is not to make such orders save where a clear case is made out.
The general principle underlying this practice is that the Crown should neither be inhibited nor encouraged in the prosecution of proceedings in the Criminal Courts by the prospect of gaining or losing the costs of those proceedings. Such observations as the High Court has recently made concerning the payment of costs by the Crown when an unsuccessful applicant for special leave to appeal from a State Court of Criminal Appeal, which is normally the final arbiter of appeals, have no bearing on the issue before this court.
The principle remains that the discretion is unfettered, but the applicant for costs must establish a proper basis for its exercise.
In our view, there are no circumstances which warrant the making of an order. The application has not been shown to be not bona fide, nor was it a frivolous application or one lacking in any merit. The offence was serious, there was no guidance to be had from any established sentencing practice, and it was a matter of sufficient public importance to make the application a responsible one, even though it was, in fact, unsuccessful.
The application is therefore refused.
0
0
0