R v TH; R v Mt; R v Me; R v MC (Costs)

Four co-accused, TH, Mt, Me, and MC, appealed the costs orders made against them following their conviction in a joint trial. The defendants contested the trial judge's decision to apportion costs between them under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), arguing that the Crown's key witness was very substantially lacking in credit. They sought a certificate under the Act, which would allow them to seek costs from the Crown. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that the witness's credit was not so lacking as to warrant a certificate and that the costs should be apportioned among the defendants as per the trial judge's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown's key witness was so lacking in credit that it warranted a certificate under the Act, thus allowing the defendants to seek costs from the Crown. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's assessment of the witness's credit was correct and whether the apportionment of costs was just and equitable. The defendants argued that the witness's testimony was unreliable and inconsistent, while the Crown maintained that the witness's credit was not so lacking as to warrant a certificate.

The court examined the witness's testimony and found that while there were inconsistencies, they did not reach the level of substantial unreliability required for a certificate under the Act. The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the witness's credit and found that the apportionment of costs was just and equitable. The court noted that the defendants had not demonstrated that the witness's credit was so lacking as to warrant a certificate, and therefore, the defendants were not entitled to seek costs from the Crown. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders for costs remained as apportionments among the defendants.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the defendants' appeals and to uphold the trial judge's decision on costs. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the witness's credit and that the apportionment of costs was just and equitable. The defendants were not entitled to a certificate under the Act, and therefore, they could not seek costs from the Crown. The costs orders made by the trial judge were to remain in place.