THE QUEEN v. SAM SCOTT No. ACTG11 of 1993 FED No. 576 Number of pages - 18 Criminal Jurisdiction - Criminal - Criminal Practice and Procedure (1993) 116 ALR 703 (1993) 42 FCR 1
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION MILES(1), HILL(2) AND COOPER(3) JJ
CATCHWORDS
Criminal jurisdiction - order as to costs - including those of the committal proceedings - appeal against order - whether power to make the order - if power existed whether the order was a wrongful or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
Criminal - charged with indictable offences - bail - recognizance - committal proceedings - trial date set - Director of Public Prosecutions not proceed with prosecution - no indictment presented - discharged - argument as to costs - order against the Crown in right of the A.C.T. - whether jurisdiction to award costs in criminal proceedings - whether a practice against ordering such costs - historical development of committal proceedings and the presentation of indictments to the court in Australia.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Desirability of early arraignment after committal - desirability of early decision not to prosecute further after committal.
Wright v. Judge Chester Stewart Keon-Cohen No. 11665 of 1991, Unreported, 18 September, 1992
Holden and Co. v. Crown Prosecution Service (No. 2) (1993) 2 WLR 934
In Re Carbonit Aktiengesellschaft (1924) 2…
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 Scott
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
The Queen v. Scott, S. [1993] FCA 576 ((1993) 116 ALR 703; (1993) 42 FCR 1)
Case
[1993] FCA 576
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Scott, the respondent, Scott, appealed against an order made by Mr. Justice Higgins on February 22, 1993, which mandated that the Crown should bear the costs of the accused, including those incurred during committal proceedings. The primary issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to make such an order and, if it did, whether the order constituted a wrongful or erroneous exercise of that jurisdiction.
The court examined the statutory provisions governing criminal proceedings and the precedents set in similar cases to determine the extent of its authority. The court found that while it did have the power to order costs, the manner in which the order was made by Mr. Justice Higgins was flawed. Specifically, the court held that the order should not have been made without proper consideration of the factors and principles that guide the allocation of costs in criminal cases. The court concluded that the order was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction due to the lack of appropriate reasoning and adherence to established legal principles.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order made by Mr. Justice Higgins was set aside. In its place, the court ordered that Scott's application for costs be dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to legal principles when making orders regarding costs in criminal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The order of Mr. Justice Higgins made on 22 February, 1993 whereby he ordered that the costs of the accused, including those of the committal proceedings be paid by the Crown, be set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered that the application for costs be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the