Legal Research
Cases
R v Connolly

R v Connolly

Case [2008] NZCA 548 10 December 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA215/2008
CA216/2008
CA217/2008
CA218/2008
[2008] NZCA 548
THE QUEEN
v
PETER MICHAEL CONNOLLY
JOHN DONALD CURRIE
JOHN ANTHONY REID
PETER WILLIAM RUSSEL
Hearing:30 September 2008

Court:O'Regan, Ellen France and Baragwanath JJ
Counsel:J C Pike for Appellant

H Fulton for Respondent Connolly
N C Z Khouri for Respondent Reid
No appearances for Respondents Currie and Russel

Judgment:10 December 2008 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.
BThe order that interest be paid on the awards of costs in favour of the respondents is quashed.
CWe make no award of costs in this Court.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by O’Regan J)
Issue
[1] The sole issue in this appeal is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to award interest on costs payable to the respondents under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.
Background
[2] The respondents were charged with conspiracy to defraud and (in the case of Messrs Reid and Russel) money laundering and faced trial before a Judge alone (Fogarty J) in the High Court. They were acquitted on all counts. They sought costs under s 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. Fogarty J accepted that they were entitled to a contribution to the costs they incurred in defending the charges, and that the costs should be calculated by reference to the rate at which Crown prosecutors are paid.
[3]       In the case of Mr Connelly and Mr Currie, he found that they were entitled to recover for their solicitor and counsel costs for the whole proceedings (subject to a minor exception) at the Crown rate according to Crown standards for allowance and assessment of time engaged (including any Crown limit on preparation hours). In relation to Mr Russel and Mr Reid, he found that they were entitled to a contribution to their costs for half the proceedings and that they were also entitled to half of the amount so calculated in relation to the remainder of the proceedings (in essence, therefore, they were entitled to three-quarters of the solicitor and counsel costs for the proceedings): (2006) 22 NZTC 19,844.
[4]       At [97] of that judgment, the Judge directed that the parties were to prepare costs claims calculated on the basis already outlined, and any disbursements allowed by the Crown rate. He said that if agreement was reached the agreed figures could be submitted within a draft judgment for sealing, and in the absence of agreement he would receive submissions in writing from the parties as to the disputed aspects of the calculation. He reserved leave to that extent. He also ruled at [99] that the respondents could recover reasonable travelling expenses, with a limited exception.
[5]       The award of costs made by Fogarty J was reduced on appeal to this Court: R v Connolly (2007) 23 NZTC 21,172. It was reinstated on further appeal to the Supreme Court: R v Reid [2008] 1 NZLR 575.
[6]       After Fogarty J awarded costs,…

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 R v Connolly

Details

AGLC: R v Connolly [2008] NZCA 548
Case: [2008] NZCA 548
Decision Date: 10 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents in this case were charged with conspiracy to defraud and, in some instances, money laundering. They were acquitted on all counts and sought costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The High Court awarded costs, and later, due to the delay in payment, the respondents sought an award of interest. The Crown appealed against the interest award. The sole issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to award interest on the costs payable to the respondents under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The Court considered whether the interest award could be justified under section 19(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, section 87 of the Judicature Act 1908 or section 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The Court found that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to award interest on the costs awards made in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the order that interest be paid on the awards of costs in favour of the respondents was quashed. No costs were awarded in this Court.

Orders