Stenner-Wall v The King - [2024] NSWDC 365

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stenner-Wall v R [2024] NSWDC 365
Hearing dates: 26 April 2024 and 3 June 2024
Decision date: 19 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wass SC DCJ
Decision:
See [51]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Costs — Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) — Witness refused to complete evidence — Relevant fact

Legislation Cited:
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCA 174
Allerton v DPP (1991) 53 A Crim R 33
Fisher v R [2024] NSWCCA 68
Kamali v R; Mosawi v R; Shahsawari v R; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799
LF v R [2023] NSWCCA 232
Martin v NRMA Insurance Limited [2000] FCA 773
R v Bloomfield (DCNSW, 21 June 2019, unreported) R v Ferguson (DCNSW, 9 February 2007, unreported)
R v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
R v Peter Anthony Quinn [2014] NSWDC 59
Rodden v R [2023] NSWCCA 202
Tikomaimaleya v R [2017] NSWCCA 21
Trade Right New South Wales Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd (No 12) [2012] NSWSC 1363

Category: Costs
Parties: Jay Stenner-Wall (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms R. Suters (Applicant)
Ms K. Mulley (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ms V. Taylor (Applicant)
Ms A. Banks (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/249639
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any matter which identifies the complainant or may lead to the identification of the complainant

JUDGMENT

The Crown brought an indictment against the applicant, Mr Stenner-Wall, alleging sexual assaults against KW. The applicant pleaded not guilty to counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. The applicant disputed the factual circumstances of counts 1, 6 and 7.
The trial commenced on 13 November 2023. On 14 November 2023, during her cross-examination, KW refused to give further evidence.
On 15 November 2023, the Crown directed that there be no further proceedings in respect of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10.
The applicant makes an application for a certificate pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) ("Costs Act") arising from the asserted lack of credibility of KW.
The application is opposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions ("the Director").

Legal Framework

A certificate may be granted where, after the commencement of a trial, a direction is given by the Director that no further proceedings be taken.
Section 3 of the Costs Act provides that a certificate states, in the opinion of the court or judge granting the certificate:

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

That any act or omission of the defendant that contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of…

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 Stenner-Wall v The King

Details

AGLC: Stenner-Wall v The King [2024] NSWDC 365
Case: [2024] NSWDC 365
Decision Date: 19 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of Stenner-Wall v The King involved a dispute regarding costs in a criminal case under the provisions of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). The defendant, Stenner-Wall, appealed against the refusal of the lower court to award costs after a key witness declined to complete their evidence. The crux of the matter was whether the witness's refusal constituted a "relevant fact" that would warrant an award of costs to the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the term "relevant fact" within the context of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The court had to determine if the witness's refusal to complete their evidence could be considered a "relevant fact" that justified the awarding of costs to the defendant under the Act. This required a nuanced understanding of both statutory language and the practical implications of such a decision within the criminal justice system.

The court carefully examined the legislative intent behind the Act and the broader implications of recognising a witness's refusal as a "relevant fact." It concluded that such a refusal could indeed be a relevant fact in certain circumstances, particularly when it significantly impacted the trial's fairness and efficiency. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that the witness's refusal was a relevant fact warranting the award of costs. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of defendants' rights in criminal proceedings.

The final orders of the court reflected its decision, granting the defendant the costs associated with the trial up to the point where the witness refused to complete their evidence. This ruling provided a clear precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that defendants could seek appropriate remedies when faced with such procedural challenges.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [51]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Stenner-Wall v R [2024] NSWDC 365
Hearing dates:	26 April 2024 and 3 June 2024
Decision date:	19 July 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wass SC DCJ
Decision:	See [51]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Costs — Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) — Witness refused to complete evidence — Relevant fact
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCA 174 Allerton v DPP (1991) 53 A Crim R 33 Fisher v R [2024] NSWCCA 68 Kamali v R; Mosawi v R; Shahsawari v R; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799 LF v R [2023] NSWCCA 232 Martin v NRMA Insurance Limited [2000] FCA 773 R v Bloomfield (DCNSW, 21 June 2019, unreported) R v Ferguson (DCNSW, 9 February 2007, unreported) R v Hatfield [2001] NSWSC 334 R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 R v Peter Anthony Quinn [2014] NSWDC 59 Rodden v R [2023] NSWCCA 202 Tikomaimaleya v R [2017] NSWCCA 21 Trade Right New South Wales Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd (No 12) [2012] NSWSC 1363
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Jay Stenner-Wall (Applicant) Rex (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms R. Suters (Applicant) Ms K. Mulley (Respondent) Solicitors: Ms V. Taylor (Applicant) Ms A. Banks (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/249639
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any matter which identifies the complainant or may lead to the identification of the complainant