R v Snow

The case of *R v Snow* concerned a criminal trial conducted before the High Court of Australia. The accused, Francis Hugh Snow, was prosecuted on indictment for trading with the enemy and was convicted and sentenced to a fine. The central dispute arose when the trial judge, Isaacs J., purported to order the convicted person to pay the costs of the trial, subject to a question reserved for the Full Court.

The legal issue before the Full Court was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction, under the *Judiciary Act 1903-1915*, to order a person convicted on indictment before it to pay the costs of that trial. Counsel for the accused argued that the Act, particularly section 26, should not be interpreted to include criminal trials, referencing the general rule in the States that such costs could not be awarded and suggesting that section 64, which deals with costs in suits to which the Commonwealth is a party, would be rendered unnecessary if section 26 had such a broad application.

The Full Court, in answering the reserved question in the affirmative, reasoned that the definitions within section 2 of the *Judiciary Act* were critical. The Court noted that the term "matter" in section 26 was the broadest of the terms used ("suit," "cause," and "matter"), encompassing all proceedings before the Court, including criminal proceedings. As section 26 extended the High Court's jurisdiction to award costs to "all matters," and no other provision qualified or controlled this jurisdiction in a relevant way, the Court concluded that the power to award costs was exercisable according to judicial discretion. Consequently, Isaacs J. was correct in ordering the accused to pay the costs of the trial.