Reddy v R Tan v R

In Reddy v R and Tan v R, the applicants sought a certificate for costs against the Crown, as provided under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The applicants contended that they had satisfied the criteria set out in section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which requires a civil standard of proof. They argued that the Crown had unreasonably withheld a police note from the prosecuting authorities, which in this context includes the police. The applicants claimed that this failure prejudiced their ability to prepare and conduct their defence adequately.

The court had to determine whether the applicants met the civil standard of proof required by section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Additionally, it needed to assess whether the withholding of the police note by the Crown constituted an unreasonable act that prejudiced the applicants' defence. The court considered the extent to which the applicants' right to a fair trial was affected by the withholding of the police note. The applicants argued that the failure to disclose the note resulted in a significant disadvantage during their trial.

The court found that the applicants had indeed satisfied the civil standard of proof. It also concluded that the withholding of the police note by the Crown was unreasonable and prejudicial to the applicants' defence. The court determined that the prosecuting authorities, which include the police, were obligated to disclose relevant documents to ensure a fair trial. Given these findings, the court granted the applicants a certificate for costs against the Crown. This decision recognised the prejudice caused by the Crown's failure to disclose the police note and the impact on the applicants' ability to defend themselves effectively.