Re Crupi (Costs) - [2025] VSC 616

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0245

IN THE MATTER of Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act 1986

IN THE MATTER of an application by VINCENZO CRUPI

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2025
DATE OF RULING:	3 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Crupi (Costs)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 616

---

COSTS — Whether s 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (‘SCA’) confers a statutory power to award costs against the Chief Commissioner of Police (‘CCP’) in relation to an unsuccessful public interest immunity (‘PII’) claim by the CCP — Whether a PII claim in the context of a prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions is a criminal proceeding for the purpose of s 24 (2) of the SCA — Whether the practice of costs not being awarded in criminal proceedings applies to a PII claim — Chief Commissioner of Police v Crupi (2024) 98 ALJR 1131 — R v Crupi (Ruling No 4) [2022] VSC 676 (Redacted) — R v Payara (2012) 36 VR 326 — Perkins v County Court of Victoria (2000) 2 VR 246 — R v Wright, Danci and Currie (1992) 77 A Crim R 67 — Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 302, 304 — Evidence Act 2008, ss 130, 131A — Supreme Court Act 1986, s 24.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Vincenzo Crupi	Mr D Dann KC Mr L Richter	Stary Norton Halphen
For Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police	Mr S Maharaj KC	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

BACKGROUND

At approximately 1am on 15 March 2016, Joseph Acquaro was gunned down near his restaurant, the Gelobar, in East Brunswick.
On 9 November 2018, Vincenzo Crupi was charged with the murder of Mr Acquaro and remanded in custody.
The proceeding against Mr Crupi was ultimately discontinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on 6 May 2025.
This is an application by Mr Crupi for costs against the Chief Commissioner of Police (CCP) , mostly[1] in relation to an ultimately unsuccessful public interest immunity (PII) claim by the CCP.
[1]I say ‘mostly’ because the hearing on 2 November 2022 — one of the five hearings for which Mr Crupi seeks costs — was concerned with restricted information obtained by the Chief Examiner, not the confidential information the subject of the PII claim.
I reject Mr Crupi’s application. For the reasons given below, I find that I do not have the power to award costs.

Chronology

The history of the criminal proceeding against Mr Crupi for the murder of Joseph Acquaro is a convoluted one with many hearings along the way. Without mentioning every hearing, it is necessary to provide a reasonably detailed chronology of the proceeding to give context to the five hearings for which Mr Crupi seeks costs. Those five hearings are highlighted in bold in the chronology below.
In November 2019, Mr Crupi was committed to…

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 Re Crupi (Costs)

Details

AGLC: Re Crupi (Costs) [2025] VSC 616
Case: [2025] VSC 616
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Chief Commissioner of Police sought an order for costs against the respondent, Crupi, following the dismissal of a public interest immunity claim in relation to the prosecution of Crupi. The Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to consider whether section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 conferred a statutory power to award costs against the Chief Commissioner of Police for the unsuccessful claim, and whether a public interest immunity claim in the context of a prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions was a criminal proceeding for the purpose of section 24(2) of the Supreme Court Act. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the practice of costs not being awarded in criminal proceedings applied to a public interest immunity claim.

The court held that section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act conferred a statutory power to award costs against the Chief Commissioner of Police for an unsuccessful public interest immunity claim. The court found that the claim was not a criminal proceeding for the purposes of section 24(2) of the Supreme Court Act, and therefore the practice of costs not being awarded in criminal proceedings did not apply. The court also found that the Chief Commissioner of Police was a party for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act and was therefore entitled to be awarded costs. The court further held that the Chief Commissioner of Police was entitled to costs as the successful party in the public interest immunity claim.

The court ordered Crupi to pay the costs of the Chief Commissioner of Police in relation to the public interest immunity claim. The court found that the Chief Commissioner of Police was entitled to costs as the successful party in the public interest immunity claim, and therefore ordered Crupi to pay the costs of the Chief Commissioner of Police. The court held that the Chief Commissioner of Police was a party for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act and was therefore entitled to be awarded costs. The court also held that the public interest immunity claim was not a criminal proceeding for the purposes of section 24(2) of the Supreme Court Act, and therefore the practice of costs not being awarded in criminal proceedings did not apply.

Orders