R v Padovan [2012] NSWSC 204

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Padovan [2012] NSWSC 204 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 08 March 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Certificate granted pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - costs - application for costs certificate - Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 - ss 2, 3, 3A - unreasonable for Crown to have instituted proceedings against the defendant - evidence supporting Crown case inherently tenuous and weak Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCA 121; (2007) 171 A Crim R 510 R v Eken; R v Potrus [2012] NSWSC 2 R v Hawi & ors (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1648 R v Hawi & ors (No 9) [2011] NSWSC 1655 R v Keli Lane [No 18] [2010] NSWSC 1545 R v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196; (2000) 49 NSWLR 203 R v Pavy (1997) 98 A Crim R 396 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina David Padovan Representation: Mr H Roberts (Crown) Mr A Conwell (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Nyman Gibson Stewart File Number(s): 2009/59368

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: On 24 May 2011, David Padovan was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to two charges of affray and one of riot. These are offences against ss 93B and 93C of the Crimes Act 1900. A jury was empanelled and a trial proceeded until the jury retired on 29 September 2011. On 2 November 2011 the jury returned with verdicts of not guilty in respect of each charge. 2Shortly after his acquittal, Mr Padovan through his counsel, Mr Conwell, foreshadowed he may apply for a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (the Act). The following day, Mr Conwell confirmed that an application would be made. The matter was not urgent and other matters were more immediately pressing. Ultimately, it was the agreed position of the parties that the matter could proceed by way of written submissions without the need for oral argument. I have received written submissions from Mr Conwell dated 19 January 2012 and written submissions from the Crown Prosecutor dated 20 February 2012. Mr Conwell indicated that he did not wish to make any submissions in reply.