R v Tuifua (No.2)

[2025] NSWDC 328

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Tuifua (No.2) [2025] NSWDC 328
Hearing dates:	8 November 2024
Decision date:	21 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Costs certificate granted
Catchwords:	CRIME - COSTS - Judge Alone Trial - Verdicts of Not Guilty - whether, if the prosecution had, before the proceedings, been in possession of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), ss 2 and 3; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s165(1)(d) and 2.
Cases Cited:	R v Tuifua [2024] NSWDC 246; Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121; Beatson v R [2015] NSWCCA 17; Rodden v R [2023] NSWCCA 202; R v Hallak [2024] NSWDC 647
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Malia Tuifua (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr Mansour (Solicitor for Applicant) Mr Christoff (Crown Prosecutor for Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/00262378
Publication restriction:	Nil

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment concerns an application by Ms Malia Tuifua that she be granted a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) ("the Costs Act").

2. The application arises out of my finding Ms Tuifua (following a judge-alone trial) not guilty of the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (as well as the statutory alternative to that charge - i.e., recklessly causing grievous bodily harm) - cf R v Tuifua [2024] NSWDC 246 ("the primary judgment").

3. The Crown opposes the granting of a certificate.

4. The relevant statutory provisions are contained in sections 2 and 3 of the Costs Act.

5. For the purposes of this application, however, the focus of attention, insofar as those statutory provisions are concerned, is s3(1)(a).

6. The relevant (17) principles to be applied in considering whether the criteria in those subsections are met were authoritatively stated in Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121 at [36] per McColl JA, with whom Beazley and Hodgson JJA agreed. (see also Beatson v R [2015] NSWCCA 17).

7. Of those 17 principles, the immediately relevant ones are at: [36] (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i) (there being no (j) - an apparent typographical error), (k), (l), (m) and (r) - all of which I incorporate by reference.

8. With those principles in mind, I turn to the findings of fact I made at [24]ff of the primary judgment.

9. As the evidence in the trial emerged, there was no dispute that:

1. in the early hours of the morning of 30 July 2022, a group of people (including Ms Tuifua, Alfred and Kapeli Uelese, Ms Mateai and at least one other unidentified man) left 221A Popondetta Road, Blackett, and made their way on foot to the nearby premises at 25/25A Lang Crescent, Blackett (where Mr Tielu lived);

2. a physically violent confrontation took place involving at least some members of the group and Mr Tielu; and

3. at least one member of the group somehow struck…