Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Hatfield

Regina v Hatfield

Case [2001] NSWSC 334 7 September 2001

Limitation Periods

Costs

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
126 A Crim R 169

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70076/98

HEARING DATE(S): 31 May 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 September 2001

PARTIES :

Irena Hatfield - Applicant
Regina - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : Mr P Byrne SC - Applicant
Mr J Kiely SC - Crown Respondent

SOLICITORS: S Teen - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - costs ss 2,3 and 3A of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967 - whether, if the Crown had, at the time the applicant was charged, known all of the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings.

LEGISLATION CITED: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Magistrates (Summary Proceedings)Act 1975 (Vict)
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Allerton v Director of Public Prosecutions (1991) 24 NSWLR 550
Fejsa v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 253
R v Pavey (1997) 98 A Crim R 396
R v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196; 112 A Crim R 570
R v Dunne (unreported) Supreme Court of NSW 17 May 1990
Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
Latoudis v Casey (1990 170 CLR 534

DECISION: Application for a certificate under s 2 of the Act is refused.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Criminal

SIMPSON J

7 September 2001

REGINA v Irena HATFIELD

Judgment

HER HONOUR :

1 This is an application for a certificate under s 2 of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967 (“the Act”). The section provides as follows:

2 By s 3(1) a certificate granted under the section is required to specify that, in the opinion of the judicial officer(s) granting the certificate:

“(a) if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings; and

(b) that any act or omission of the defendant that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.”

3 By s 3A(1), the reference in s 3(1)(a) to “all the relevant facts” is a reference to such of the relevant facts as were established…

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 Hatfield

Details

AGLC: Regina v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334
Case: [2001] NSWSC 334
Decision Date: 7 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hatfield was charged with multiple criminal offences. He applied to have the charges dismissed on the basis that if the Crown had known all the facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings. The court considered the relevant sections of the Costs of Criminal Cases Act 1967 and whether the Crown's decision to prosecute was reasonable in light of the applicant's arguments. The court examined the evidence and submissions made by both parties and assessed the reasonableness of the Crown's decision to proceed with the charges.

The court held that the Crown's decision to institute the proceedings was reasonable, as it was based on the information available at the time. The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proving that the charges should not have been laid. The court also considered the principles of prosecutorial discretion and the importance of holding individuals accountable for criminal conduct. The applicant's application was dismissed, and the charges against him were upheld.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the principles of prosecutorial discretion. The court found that the Crown's decision to prosecute was reasonable and in accordance with the law. The applicant's arguments were not sufficient to establish that the charges should not have been laid. The court also emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for criminal conduct and the role of the prosecution in achieving justice.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application to have the charges dismissed was dismissed, and the charges against him were upheld. The court did not order any costs to be paid by the applicant.

Orders