Regina v Bernard Lawrence JOHNSTON

[2000] NSWCCA 197

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Costs
3. › Costs certificate
4. › Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), s 2
5. › Application following quashing of conviction on appeal
6. › Whether it would not have been reasonable to institute proceedings if prosecution had all evidence
7. › Onus on applicant to establish negative proposition
8. › Credible complaint of serious offences requiring jury evaluation
1. Criminal Law
2. › Costs
3. › Costs certificate
4. › Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), ss 2, 3, 3A
5. › Evaluative process under s 3(1)
6. › Steps required for determination
7. › Role of s 3(1)(b) in relation to conduct of accused
1. Criminal Law
2. › Costs
3. › Costs certificate
4. › Jurisdiction
5. › Whether Court of Criminal Appeal differently constituted from appeal bench has jurisdiction to entertain application
6. › Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), s 2
1. Criminal Law
2. › Costs
3. › Costs certificate
4. › Delay in making application
5. › Whether delay warrants refusal in exercise of overriding discretion

Quick Take

The five-step evaluative process under s 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) requires the applicant to discharge the onus of establishing that it would not have been reasonable to institute proceedings if the prosecution had all the evidence. Where the prosecution had an apparently credible complaint of serious offences, the fact that convictions were ultimately quashed does not of itself establish that the prosecution was unreasonably instituted. The argument that 'justice must be seen to be done' is not a relevant consideration in the evaluative process.