NSW Police v Chu [2021] NSWLC 4

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police v Chu [2021] NSWLC 4 Hearing dates: 24 February 2021 Date of orders: 08 March 2021 Decision date: 08 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: McGlynn LCM Decision: Defendant's application for costs refused Catchwords: ADVO PROCEEDINGS – COSTS – Inexcusable deviation from reasonable case management Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, ss 99 (rep), 99A Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 214 Justices Act 1902 (rep), s 66F Cases Cited: Redman v Willcocks (2010) 79 NSWLR 226 DPP v West [2000] 48 NSWLR 647 Category: Costs Parties: NSW Police (prosecution) Cornelius Bartholomew Wai Kiu Chu (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr Butterfield for the Defendant

Solicitor for the Defendant: Hunt & Hunt Lawyers

Prosecutor: Sergeant Kalimeris File Number(s): 2020/107436 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. The defendant in this case seeks an order for costs following the withdrawal of an application for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) on the date it was listed for hearing; 24 February 2021. 2. The withdrawal of the ADVO application was subsequent to the refusal of a Prosecution application to adjourn the contested hearing that was made as a consequence of the Prosecution's failure to serve a large amount of material on which they wished to rely on the Defence. The Court was advised that the material included emails from the defendant to the complainant; and handwritten and typewritten letters allegedly left in the mail box of the complainant by the defendant. The material was referred to in a general way in the complainant's statement of evidence, a document which had been served; and was relied upon to prove ongoing harassment of the Person In Need Of Protection (PINOP) by the defendant. 3. The costs application is brought pursuant to s 99A of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act which reads (relevantly): s 99A (2) A court cannot, in apprehended domestic violence order proceedings, award professional costs against an applicant who is a police officer unless satisfied that: (a) the applicant made the application knowing it contained matter that was false or misleading in a material particular, or (b) the applicant has deviated from the reasonable case management of the proceedings so significantly as to be inexcusable. 1. For this application the Defence rely on subsection (b) only.