Trevitt v Police - [2012] NSWLC 4

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4
Hearing dates: 24/04/12
Decision date: 18 May 2012
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe LCM
Decision:
No jurisdiction to hear costs application

Catchwords: COSTS - when costs may be awarded to accused person - meaning of "at the end of summary proceedings" - s 213 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Fosse v DPP (1989) 16 NSWLR 540
R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203
Category: Costs
Parties: Steven Rodney Trevitt
Police
Representation: Mr Brady for Mr Trevitt
Nyman Gibson Stewart Solicitors for Mr Trevitt
Police did not seek to be heard

File Number(s): 2010/75864

Judgment

Introduction

On 11 March 2011 I delivered a judgment in which I dismissed a charge of assault police in the execution of duty, and a charge of intimidate a police officer in the execution of duty, brought against Mr Trevitt. The transcript of the judgment reveals that I dismissed both charges at T38.30-35. At T38.17 I said to the parties, "If there's nothing further, I'll adjourn". Neither party indicated to me that there was anything further to be raised with me concerning the proceedings. Mr Trevitt was legally represented on the day that I delivered judgment.

It is accepted by the Police and the representatives of Mr Trevitt that no application for costs was made to me prior to my adjourning after the delivery of my judgment dismissing the two charges. On 9 March 2012 a letter dated that day, addressed to myself and written by the solicitors for Mr Trevitt, was received by the Chief Magistrate's Office in Sydney. The letter was forwarded to the Newcastle Court House where I am currently sitting and was received at Newcastle on 14 March 2012.

Shortly after the letter was received at Newcastle Court House it was brought to my attention. I will attach a copy of that letter and the document attached to it, to this judgment. The letter asserted, clearly wrongly, that a costs application had in fact been made in the proceedings and that the parties had agreed not to deal with the application until after the transcript of my judgment had been received. The letter further stated that submissions on behalf of Mr Trevitt had been served on the Police, and that agreement had been reached that it was appropriate to award costs against the Police. The letter also asserted that it had been agreed that $36,300 inclusive of GST had been assessed as reasonable costs for the work done on behalf of Mr Trevitt.

Enclosed with the letter was a document headed in part, "Costs Application - Criminal Procedure Act Orders For Costs - By Consent". That document essentially set out orders reflecting the agreement that the parties had apparently reached. Those orders also wrongly set out that a costs application had been made in the proceedings. The letter requested that I deal with the matter in…

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 Trevitt v Police

Details

AGLC: Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4
Case: [2012] NSWLC 4
Decision Date: 18 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trevitt v Police involved a dispute regarding the award of costs under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The applicant, Trevitt, sought costs from the police at the conclusion of summary proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Byrne. The central legal issue before the court was whether the phrase "at the end of summary proceedings" in section 213 of the Act meant the conclusion of the proceedings before the court or the conclusion of all potential appeals. Trevitt argued that costs should be awarded at the conclusion of all potential appeals, whereas the police contended that costs should only be awarded once the proceedings before the court were final.

The court examined the language of the statute and the context in which it was used. It was noted that the phrase "at the end of summary proceedings" could be ambiguous and open to interpretation. The court considered the purpose of the provision, which was to ensure that the accused was not unduly burdened by legal costs during the criminal process. The court found that the plain language of the statute suggested that costs should be awarded at the conclusion of the proceedings before the court, rather than including any potential appeals. The court reasoned that allowing costs at the conclusion of all potential appeals could create an undue burden on the accused, contrary to the intent of the statute.

Ultimately, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application for costs because the proceedings before the court were not yet final. The court determined that the statutory language did not support the applicant's interpretation and that costs should only be awarded once the proceedings before the court were concluded. As a result, the application for costs was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders beyond this determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

No jurisdiction to hear costs application

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:	Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4
Hearing dates:	24/04/12
Decision date:	18 May 2012
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe LCM
Decision:	No jurisdiction to hear costs application
Catchwords:	COSTS - when costs may be awarded to accused person - meaning of "at the end of summary proceedings" - s 213 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Legislation Cited:	Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	Fosse v DPP (1989) 16 NSWLR 540 R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Steven Rodney Trevitt Police
Representation:	Mr Brady for Mr Trevitt Nyman Gibson Stewart Solicitors for Mr Trevitt Police did not seek to be heard
File Number(s):	2010/75864