Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trevitt v Police [2012] NSWLC 4 Hearing dates: 24/04/12 Decision date: 18 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Buscombe LCM Decision: No jurisdiction to hear costs application Catchwords: COSTS - when costs may be awarded to accused person - meaning of "at the end of summary proceedings" - s 213 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Cases Cited: Fosse v DPP (1989) 16 NSWLR 540 R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203 Category: Costs Parties: Steven Rodney Trevitt Police Representation: Mr Brady for Mr Trevitt Nyman Gibson Stewart Solicitors for Mr Trevitt Police did not seek to be heard File Number(s): 2010/75864

Judgment

Introduction 1On 11 March 2011 I delivered a judgment in which I dismissed a charge of assault police in the execution of duty, and a charge of intimidate a police officer in the execution of duty, brought against Mr Trevitt. The transcript of the judgment reveals that I dismissed both charges at T38.30-35. At T38.17 I said to the parties, "If there's nothing further, I'll adjourn". Neither party indicated to me that there was anything further to be raised with me concerning the proceedings. Mr Trevitt was legally represented on the day that I delivered judgment. 2It is accepted by the Police and the representatives of Mr Trevitt that no application for costs was made to me prior to my adjourning after the delivery of my judgment dismissing the two charges. On 9 March 2012 a letter dated that day, addressed to myself and written by the solicitors for Mr Trevitt, was received by the Chief Magistrate's Office in Sydney. The letter was forwarded to the Newcastle Court House where I am currently sitting and was received at Newcastle on 14 March 2012. 3Shortly after the letter was received at Newcastle Court House it was brought to my attention. I will attach a copy of that letter and the document attached to it, to this judgment. The letter asserted, clearly wrongly, that a costs application had in fact been made in the proceedings and that the parties had agreed not to deal with the application until after the transcript of my judgment had been received. The letter further stated that submissions on behalf of Mr Trevitt had been served on the Police, and that agreement had been reached that it was appropriate to award costs against the Police. The letter also asserted that it had been agreed that $36,300 inclusive of GST had been assessed as reasonable costs for the work done on behalf of Mr Trevitt. 4Enclosed with the letter was a document headed in part, "Costs Application - Criminal Procedure Act Orders For Costs - By Consent". That document essentially set out orders reflecting the agreement that the parties had apparently reached. Those orders also wrongly set out that a costs application had been made in the proceedings. The letter requested that I deal with the matter in chambers and sign the Consent Orders and have them returned to the solicitors for Mr Trevitt. The letter indicated that the orders had been signed by the solicitor for Mr Trevitt and the police prosecutor who had originally conducted the hearing. 5In view of the fact no costs application had been made to me at any time, and a year had passed since I had delivered my judgment dismissing the two charges, I directed the Deputy Registrar at Newcastle Court House to write to the solicitors for Mr Trevitt. A copy of that letter will also be attached to this judgment. 6The Deputy Registrar's letter stated that I was not prepared to sign the Consent Orders document. If the issue was to be pursued the matter was to be re-listed before me to hear argument as to my power to hear a costs application, given what had occurred, or perhaps more accurately, had not occurred. 7The matter was listed for argument before me on 12 April 2012 and Mr Brady of counsel appeared on behalf of Mr Trevitt. Mr Brady indicated he mentioned the matter for the Police who did not wish to be heard.