AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 June 2025

R v Meredith

[2025] NSWDC 246

Sexual offences
CRIMINAL LAW JUDGEMENT COSTS APPLICATION

Citation: R v Meredith [2025] NSWDC 246
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 June 2025
Judge(s): Bennett ADCJ

Background

The applicant, Timothy William Meredith, stood trial on an indictment containing 27 counts involving allegations made by two complainants, KN and JM. The trial before judge and jury in Dubbo ran from 12 June 2024 to 27 June 2024. A second, separate trial before a judge alone followed back-to-back and concerned different allegations.

In the first trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on three counts involving KN and not guilty on the remaining 24 counts. The not guilty verdicts arose in two ways: the judge directed verdicts of not guilty on 18 counts (because the evidence at trial failed to establish the essential elements), and the jury returned not guilty verdicts on a further six counts after deliberation. The applicant was ultimately sentenced on 4 April 2025 following the conclusion of both trials.

After the jury verdicts, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 in respect of the counts on which he was acquitted. The application was confined to the first trial.

  • Whether the court should grant a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, specifically:
  • Whether, had the prosecution been in possession of all relevant facts before proceedings were instituted, it would not have been reasonable to institute those proceedings
  • Whether any act or omission by the applicant that contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances
  • Whether the directed verdicts of not guilty on 18 counts (due to evidence not covering essential elements) supported a finding that institution of those charges was unreasonable
  • Whether JM's evidence was so substantially lacking in credibility that prosecution on her allegations was unreasonable

Decision

The court refused the application. Bennett ADCJ reviewed the full body of evidence from the trial and was not persuaded that the institution or continuation of the proceedings, in respect of either complainant, was unreasonable.

On the 18 counts resolved by directed verdicts, the court accepted the applicant's argument that a hypothetical prosecutor possessed of all relevant facts in advance would not have charged those counts. However, the court found that the evidence of KN considered overall, including tendency evidence the Crown intended to lead, provided cogent support for the charges as a whole. The court noted that KN's failure to give evidence of certain elements in the witness box did not render the original decision to prosecute those counts unreasonable at the time proceedings were instituted.

On JM's allegations, the applicant pointed to the evidence of JM's mother, Ms Craine, who flatly contradicted her daughter on several key matters: she denied knowing JM had any boyfriends before age 17 other than one named individual, denied ever meeting or hearing of the applicant, denied being told of any sexual assault, and denied JM had the opportunity to travel to Mudgee before turning 17. The court, however, found the mother to be a witness who lacked credit and reliability, citing patent acrimony she displayed toward her own daughter and finding it implausible she would have had no knowledge of JM's association with the applicant given other evidence of that relationship. The court concluded JM's evidence offered cogent support for the prosecution.

The court accepted that any act or omission by the applicant that contributed to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances. The application was nonetheless refused because the threshold under the Act, that prosecution would not have been reasonable had the relevant facts been known, was not met.

Orders Made

  • The application for a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 was refused.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that a costs certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 may be sought in respect of some but not all counts on an indictment, including counts resolved by directed verdicts of not guilty.
  • The relevant test is prospective: whether a hypothetical prosecutor, armed with all relevant facts before proceedings were commenced, would not reasonably have instituted those proceedings. The fact that an accused was committed for trial, that a prima facie case existed, or that there were reasonable prospects of conviction does not automatically satisfy that test.
  • Where prosecution evidence offered cogent support for charges at the time of institution, a subsequent failure by the complainant to give evidence of all essential elements in the witness box does not by itself render the decision to prosecute unreasonable.
  • A complainant's evidence being contradicted by a third party did not here establish substantial want of credibility where the court assessed that third party as themselves lacking credit and reliability.
  • Under the Act, a defendant's silence during the investigation, such as declining to participate in a police interview, is not a matter that contributed or might have contributed to the institution or continuation of proceedings, and does not disentitle the defendant from seeking relief.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), ss 2, 3
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(1), 61I, 61J(1), 61M(2), 66C(3)

Cases:
- Allerton v Director of Public Prosecutions (1991) 24 NSWLR 550
- Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs) [2022] NSWCCA 248
- Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82
- Kamali v R; Mosawi v R; Bejoushin v R [2013] NSWSC 799
- Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
- Mourdant v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 121
- Pavy (1997) 98 A Crim R 396 (CCA NSW)
- R v Bloomfield (unreported, District Court, 21 June 2019)
- R v Cardon [2002] NSWSC 823
- R v Dunne (unreported, NSWSC, 17 May 1990)
- R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197
- R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291
- R v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247
- R v Williams (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 145
- Reg v Williams; ex parte Williams [1970] 1 NSWR 81
- Regina v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196
- RMC v R [2013] NSWCCA 285
- Rodden v R [2023] NSWCCA 202
- R v Hannah Quinn [2021] NSWSC 494
- Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129