Rodden v R

The case of Rodden v R involved the appellant, Rodden, appealing against the decision of the Supreme Court to decline his application for a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). The appellant's defence was largely funded by legal aid, and he sought to recover costs from the Crown. The primary issue was whether a legally aided applicant can recover costs pursuant to the Act, and if public policy considerations should prevent the grant of a certificate to such applicants. Additionally, the court considered whether the decision to decline the application for a costs certificate was an interlocutory decision, and if an appeal lay to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the decision to decline to grant a costs certificate was an exercise of judicial power, not administrative, and thus subject to appeal under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The court also determined that it would have been unreasonable for a hypothetical prosecutor to institute proceedings against Rodden, given the facts of the case. The court found that there were no public policy considerations that precluded Rodden from recovering costs, and thus the decision to decline the application for a costs certificate was unreasonable. The court exercised its residual discretion to decline the application, but this was found to be an error in law.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the trial judge, and remitted the matter back to the trial judge for reconsideration. The court also ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by the Crown. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that the exercise of judicial discretion in such matters is conducted correctly, and highlights the role of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act in providing a framework for the recovery of costs in criminal proceedings.