The Queen v Peter Martiniello

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Justice Connolly delivered a ruling in the case of The Queen v Peter Martiniello. The case revolved around a request by the defence for costs to be paid by the Crown due to the late adjournment of a trial. The adjournment was caused by the Crown's unavailability of a police witness and certain evidence. The defence argued that the Crown was aware of the evidential gap for some months, leading to significant unfairness towards the accused who had retained senior and junior counsel to prepare for the trial.

The legal issue before the court was whether the costs order of 31 January 2005 should include cancellation fees in the calculation of the reasonable costs incurred by the defence due to the adjournment. Justice Connolly concluded that cancellation fees should not be included in the costs order. He reasoned that there is no general power to award costs in criminal proceedings in the ACT and no recognition of cancellation fees in the rules of the court. Furthermore, the practice of cancellation fees might increase costs in civil matters, which are ultimately paid by the public through compulsory third-party insurance. Justice Connolly also noted that there were no practice directions or rules from the Australian Capital Territory Law Society or Bar in relation to cancellation costs.

As a result of the ruling, the court ordered that the costs order of 31 January 2005 be calculated on the ordinary basis without allowance for cancellation fees. The matter was adjourned for the parties to negotiate an appropriate costs award, with the option to relist the matter on three days notice if an agreement could not be reached. The costs of the hearing were reserved.