R v Fejsa (1995) 82 A Crim R 253 R v Pavy NSWCCA, unrep. 9 December 1997 R v McFarlane, Blanch J, unrep. 12 August 1994 R v Manley (2000) NSWCCA 196 R v Johnston (2000) NSWCCA 197 Allerton v DPP (1991) 2 4 NSWLR 550
DECISION:
Order that in relation to her trial and sentencing in the District Court Cala Phyllis Groom be granted a certificate under s.2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1967
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA 60134/98
BARR J GREG JAMES J SMART AJ
Friday, 15 December 2000
REGINA v CARLA PHYLLIS GROOM
JUDGMENT
1 BARR J: I agree with Smart, AJ.
2 GREG JAMES, J: I agree with Smart, AJ.
3 I add that I too see no justification, in law or policy, for the submission made by the Director, that in a case where the evidence was, at the time of arrest and charging, insufficient to sustain a conviction, the reasonableness of the conduct of the Director in so doing should be upheld by the court.
4 SMART AJ: Consequent upon this Court directing that a verdict of acquittal be entered in respect of the charge of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely, cannabis leaf, Ms Groom has applied for a certificate for her costs of the trial pursuant to s.2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).
5 This judgment should be read with the earlier judgment of the members of this Court where the facts are canvassed in detail. Regina v Lonie & Groom [1997] NSWCCA 319. From those it appears that the Crown case against her was that she was aware that Lonie (her de facto husband) possessed cannabis leaf for supply and with this knowledge she intentionally suffered or permitted Lonie to store or keep such drug at the house at Somersby of which she was the lessee.
6 Sections 2, 3 and 3A of the Act provide:
s 2 The Court or Justice or Justices in any proceedings relating to any offence whether punishable or upon indictment, may -
(a) where the defendant after a hearing on the merits, is acquitted or discharged as to the information then under inquiry; or
(b) where, on appeal, the conviction of the defendant is quashed and
(i) the defendant is charged as to the indictment upon which…
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 Regina v Groom
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Regina v Groom [2000] NSWCCA 538
Case
[2000] NSWCCA 538
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the decision to quash the conviction of the appellant on two counts of indecent assault. The appellant had been acquitted of a third count, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on a fourth count. The central issue before the court was whether the Crown was entitled to be reimbursed for the costs associated with the appellant's criminal trial. The court was required to determine whether the Crown was entitled to recover these costs given that the appellant's convictions were deemed insupportable due to the insufficiency of evidence.
The court began by acknowledging the principle that the Crown is not entitled to be reimbursed for costs when the verdicts of guilt are insupportable for reasons unrelated to the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the court noted that this principle does not apply when the insufficiency of evidence directly leads to the insupportability of the verdicts. In this case, the appellant's convictions were quashed specifically because there was insufficient evidence to support them. The court held that, in such circumstances, the Crown should be entitled to recover the costs incurred during the trial. The court reasoned that the appellant's acquittal on one count and the jury's inability to reach a verdict on another count did not affect the Crown's entitlement to costs for the two counts where the appellant was found guilty but the convictions were subsequently quashed due to insufficiency of evidence.
The court concluded that the Crown was entitled to recover the costs associated with the appellant's criminal trial. The reasoning was grounded in the principle that the Crown should be reimbursed for costs when the insupportability of the verdicts is directly attributable to the insufficiency of evidence. The court did not find any circumstances that would prevent the Crown from recovering these costs.