R v Schick - [2019] NSWDC 245

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Schick [2019] NSWDC 245
Hearing dates: 7 March 2019, 17 April 2019, 2 May 2019
Date of orders: 02 May 2019
Decision date: 02 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Conlon SC ADCJ
Decision:
Grant the applicant a certificate for costs under s2(1) Costs in Criminal Cases Act

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW- Application for costs – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 - not guilty verdict – robbery – armed with dangerous weapon – act or omission of a defendant –relevant facts – inadequacy of evidence
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Allerton v The DPP (1991) 24 NSWLR 559
Mordaunt v The DPP & Anor (2007) NSW CA 121
R v Butcher (1985) 16 A Crim R
R v Foster (1995) 78 A Crim R 517
Category: Costs
Parties: Jon Andrew Schick (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Tuckey (Applicant)
R Buttini (Crown)
Solicitors:
Sydney Criminal & Traffic Lawyers (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/365456
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

An application has been made on behalf of Jon Andrew Schick for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act1967. On 5 March 2019 an indictment was presented containing a single count of robbery being armed with a dangerous weapon. Following a plea of not guilty the trial proceeded. On 6 March 2019 I directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
Included in the applicant’s written submissions is a copy of the original police facts and also a copy of the Crown case statement served on the defence on 30 January 2019 pursuant to s 141 subs (1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The alleged victim gave evidence at trial in accordance with his police statement and in accordance with the matters set out in the Crown case statement.
By way of summary, in November 2017 the complainant advertised on the Facebook page “Vegetables Australia” that he was selling cannabis. “Vegetable Australia” is a private Facebook page with 9,000 members. The page is solely used to supply and/or purchase prohibited drugs, mainly cannabis. On 21 November 2017 by prior arrangement, the applicant drove his car to a location in Castlereagh Street (near the Goulburn parking station) and met with the complainant. The complainant supplied the applicant with 1 ounce (28 grams) of cannabis for $330.
On the evening of 22 November 2017 the complainant received a message from the applicant requesting 5 ounces (140 grams) of cannabis. Arrangements were then made to meet at the same location where the first supply took place. At around midnight on that evening the complainant walked across Castlereagh Street to where the applicant was seated in his car. This incident or at least portion of it, was captured on CCTV footage. The complainant got into the front passenger seat. He then handed the applicant 5 ounces of cannabis in individual bags. The applicant then…

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 Schick

Details

AGLC: R v Schick [2019] NSWDC 245
Case: [2019] NSWDC 245
Decision Date: 02 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Schick, the applicant sought a certificate for costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The dispute arose after the applicant was charged with robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. The applicant was acquitted after the jury found the applicant not guilty. The application for costs was heard by a magistrate in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the inadequacy of evidence provided by the Crown constituted a relevant fact that entitled the applicant to a certificate for costs. The court considered whether the applicant had acted or omitted to act in circumstances that warranted the award of costs. The applicant argued that the inadequacy of evidence led to the acquittal and justified the award of costs. The Crown contended that the applicant's acquittal did not automatically entitle the applicant to costs.

The court found that the inadequacy of the Crown's evidence was a relevant fact that warranted the award of costs. The court determined that the applicant had acted in circumstances that justified the award of costs, as the applicant was acquitted due to the inadequacy of evidence. The court granted the applicant a certificate for costs under section 2(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The court found that the applicant was entitled to costs due to the inadequacy of evidence provided by the Crown, which led to the applicant's acquittal. The court ordered that the applicant be granted a certificate for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant the applicant a certificate for costs under s2(1) Costs in Criminal Cases Act

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 Schick [2019] NSWDC 245
Hearing dates:	7 March 2019, 17 April 2019, 2 May 2019
Date of orders:	02 May 2019
Decision date:	02 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Conlon SC ADCJ
Decision:	Grant the applicant a certificate for costs under s2(1) Costs in Criminal Cases Act
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW- Application for costs – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 - not guilty verdict – robbery – armed with dangerous weapon – act or omission of a defendant –relevant facts – inadequacy of evidence
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	Allerton v The DPP (1991) 24 NSWLR 559 Mordaunt v The DPP & Anor (2007) NSW CA 121 R v Butcher (1985) 16 A Crim R R v Foster (1995) 78 A Crim R 517
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Jon Andrew Schick (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: W Tuckey (Applicant) R Buttini (Crown) Solicitors: Sydney Criminal & Traffic Lawyers (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
File Number(s):	2017/365456
Publication restriction:	Nil