Turner v Wheeler (No 2)

Turner v Wheeler (No 2) is a decision of the High Court of Australia, where the court was required to determine the issue of costs in a criminal appeal. The case involved the appellant, Turner, who was appealing against his conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent, Wheeler, was the Director of Public Prosecutions for Queensland. The primary dispute revolved around the costs associated with the criminal appeal process, specifically whether Turner was entitled to recover the costs of his legal representation from Wheeler as the respondent.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant, Turner, was entitled to recover the costs of his legal representation from the respondent, Wheeler, under section 443A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Qld). Turner argued that he was entitled to recover the costs as he had been successful in his appeal, and the appeal had resulted in the quashing of his conviction and sentence. Wheeler contended that Turner was not entitled to recover the costs as the appeal was not successful in the sense that it did not result in an acquittal or a complete discharge from the conviction and sentence.

The High Court held that Turner was not entitled to recover the costs of his legal representation from Wheeler. The court reasoned that the purpose of section 443A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Qld) was to provide a remedy for an appellant who had been successful in their appeal, and the appeal had resulted in an acquittal or a complete discharge from the conviction and sentence. In this case, although Turner's appeal was successful in that it resulted in the quashing of his conviction and sentence, it did not result in an acquittal or a complete discharge. Therefore, Turner was not entitled to recover the costs of his legal representation from Wheeler. The court also noted that the costs of legal representation in criminal appeals were a significant expense, and it was not appropriate to impose such costs on the respondent in every case where the appellant was successful in their appeal.

No further orders were made by the court.