Vines v. Mulcahy & Gordon

In the case of Vines v. Mulcahy & Gordon, the applicant, Robert McIntyre Vines, sought judicial review of a decision by the Magistrates Court to adjourn his committal proceedings to allow for the prosecution to obtain a proper certificate under section 95A of the Evidence Act 1977. The applicant was charged with multiple indictable offences, and the committal proceedings had been adjourned several times due to various reasons, including the absence of a proper s.95A certificate. The certificate was necessary for the admission of DNA evidence that could link the applicant to the alleged offences. The applicant argued that the adjournment was inappropriate as any new certificate would not be admissible at the committal proceedings because it could not have been created at least ten business days before the start of the hearing. However, the court found that the adjournment was not infected with reviewable error, as the prosecution had indicated an intention to remedy deficiencies in the first attempt at a s.95A certificate during the adjournment.

The court also addressed the issue of costs, determining that the costs of the application should generally follow the event. However, the court found that the Magistrates Court was not entitled to costs for the appearance on December 19, 2006, as the decision to not use that date for the final determination of the application was largely due to the lack of availability of a transcript of the proceedings on the second day of the committal. The court ordered that the applicant pay the Magistrates Court's costs of and incidental to the application, except for the costs reserved on December 19, 2006. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.