R v Sparos (No 2) - [2017] NSWSC 1462

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1462
Hearing dates: 26 October 2017
Decision date: 27 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) Order that, subject to Order 2, the proceedings against Luke Sparos be stayed unless and until the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) pays to him or at his direction the sum of $150,950.
(2) The proceedings be listed for mention before me on 3 November 2017 at 9:30am.
(3) The parties have liberty to apply on one day’s notice.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial date vacated - proceedings against the accused stayed until DPP pays to accused his reasonable costs thrown away by the trial date being vacated – whether the quantum of the legal costs thrown away by the trial date being vacated is reasonable – what amount is payable by the DPP
Cases Cited: R v Carbone (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 346
R v Michael John Issakidis v R [2015] NSWSC 834
R v Sparos (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 1410
Category: Costs
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Luke John Sparos (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Patrick SC (Crown)
Mr C Heliotis QC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/00196615

Judgment

On 20 October 2017, I ordered that proceedings against the accused Luke Sparos be stayed unless and until the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (“DPP”) pays to him his reasonable costs thrown away by the trial date of 3 October 2017 being vacated: R v Sparos (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 1410 (“R v Sparos (No 1)”).
It had been agreed by the Crown and the accused in the course of the hearing of that application that the Court would first determine the question of whether a temporary stay should be granted and then, in the event that the order was made, separately determine the quantum of costs. Accordingly, I ordered on 20 October 2017 that the Court would determine the amount of costs payable at a subsequent hearing. At that time, the accused’s solicitor agreed to provide to the Court and the Crown the necessary evidence to establish the reasonable costs incurred by the accused no later than 9am on Tuesday, 24 October 2017. The matter was then stood over for further hearing on 26 October 2017.
I have set out the lengthy procedural history of this matter and the reasons for granting the temporary stay in some detail in R v Sparos (No 1). This judgment should be read in conjunction with that judgment.
In summary, the accused first stood trial with three co-accused before M Adams J commencing on 11 April 2016. The trial proceeded for 17 weeks. On 5 August 2016, the jury was unable to reach a verdict in relation to the accused and was discharged. The accused privately funded his defence at that trial. On 2 September 2016, Johnson J set the matter down for a new trial…

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 Sparos (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Sparos (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1462
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1462
Decision Date: 27 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Sparos, faced criminal charges before the court. The dispute centred on the costs incurred by the defendant due to the vacating of the trial date, which led to the stay of the proceedings against him. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was the quantum of the reasonable costs that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must compensate the defendant for the costs thrown away as a result of the vacating of the trial date.

The court considered the nature of the proceedings, the complexity of the case, and the circumstances surrounding the vacating of the trial date. The court also examined the legal costs incurred by the defendant, including those related to preparation for the trial and the time spent by the defendant's legal team. The court found that the DPP had to pay the defendant his reasonable costs thrown away by the trial date being vacated. The court assessed the amount to be paid by the DPP, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, the complexity of the charges, and the efforts made by the defendant's legal team. Ultimately, the court determined the appropriate compensation amount for the defendant.

The court ordered the DPP to pay the defendant his reasonable costs thrown away by the trial date being vacated, in the amount of $[insert amount]. This decision ensures that the defendant receives appropriate compensation for the costs incurred due to the vacating of the trial date and the subsequent stay of the proceedings.

Orders