{"id":"nsw:act-1967-013","name":"Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967","slug":"costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"nsw","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"13 of 1967","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":110793,"registerId":"nsw-act-1967-013-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name of Act, commencement and application","content":"#### 1 Name of Act, commencement and application\n\n1 Name of Act, commencement and application\n\n> > (1) This Act may be cited as the [Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1967-013).\n> \n> > (2) This Act shall commence upon a day to be appointed by the Governor and notified by proclamation published in the Gazette.\n> \n> > (3) This Act does not apply in respect of proceedings instituted, or appeals lodged, before its commencement.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"1A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definition","content":"#### 1A Definition\n\n1A Definition\n\n> In this Act—\n> \n> Director-General means the Director-General of the Attorney General’s Department.\n> \n> **s 1A:** Ins 1998 No 49, Sch 5 \\[1\\].","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Certificate may be granted","content":"#### 2 Certificate may be granted\n\n2 Certificate may be granted\n\n> > (1) The Court or Judge in any proceedings relating to any offence, whether punishable summarily or upon indictment, may—\n> > \n> > > (a) where, after the commencement of a trial in the proceedings, a defendant is acquitted or discharged in relation to the offence concerned, or a direction is given by the Director of Public Prosecutions that no further proceedings be taken, or\n> > \n> > > (b) where, on appeal, the conviction of the defendant is quashed and—\n> > > \n> > > > (i) the defendant is discharged as to the indictment upon which he or she was convicted, or\n> > > \n> > > > (ii) the information or complaint upon which the defendant was convicted is dismissed,\n> > \n> > grant to that defendant a certificate under this Act, specifying the matters referred to in section 3 and relating to those proceedings.\n> \n> > (2) For the avoidance of doubt, a certificate may be granted in accordance with subsection (1) (a) following an acquittal or discharge of a defendant at any time during a trial, whether a hearing on the merits of the proceedings has occurred or not.\n> \n> > (3) In this section, trial, in relation to proceedings, includes a special hearing conducted under the [Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020](/view/html/inforce/current/act-2020-012) and also includes preliminary proceedings that form part of the trial, for example, a voir dire.\n> \n> **s 2:** Am 2001 No 85, Sch 1 \\[1\\] \\[2\\]; 2001 No 121, Sch 2.67 \\[1\\]; 2002 No 99, Sch 4.2; 2004 No 11, Sch 3; 2008 No 79, Sch 3.3; 2020 No 12, Sch 3.6; 2025 No 61, Sch 2.21\\[1\\].","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Form of certificate","content":"#### 3 Form of certificate\n\n3 Form of certificate\n\n> > (1) A certificate granted under this Act shall specify that, in the opinion of the Court or Judge granting the certificate—\n> > \n> > > (a) if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and\n> > \n> > > (b) that any act or omission of the defendant that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.\n> \n> > (2) (Repealed)\n> \n> **s 3:** Am 1997 No 141, Sch 1.4; 2001 No 121, Sch 2.67 \\[1\\]; 2025 No 61, Sch 2.21\\[1\\].","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"3A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Evidence of further relevant facts may be adduced","content":"#### 3A Evidence of further relevant facts may be adduced\n\n3A Evidence of further relevant facts may be adduced\n\n> > (1) For the purpose of determining whether or not to grant a certificate under section 2 in relation to any proceedings, the reference in section 3 (1) (a) to all the relevant facts is a reference to—\n> > \n> > > (a) the relevant facts established in the proceedings, and\n> > \n> > > (b) any relevant facts that the defendant has, on the application for the certificate, established to the satisfaction of the Court or Judge, and\n> > \n> > > (c) any relevant facts that the prosecutor, or in the absence of the prosecutor, any person authorised to represent the Minister on the application, has established to the satisfaction of the Court or Judge that—\n> > > \n> > > > (i) relate to evidence that was in the possession of the prosecutor at the time that the decision to institute proceedings was made, and\n> > > \n> > > > (ii) were not adduced in the proceedings.\n> \n> > (2) Where, on an application for a certificate under section 2 in relation to any proceedings, the defendant adduces evidence to establish further relevant facts that were not established in those proceedings, the Court or Judge to which or to whom the application is made may—\n> > \n> > > (a) order that leave be given to the prosecutor in those proceedings or, in the absence of the prosecutor, to any person authorised to represent the Minister on the application, to comment on the evidence of those further relevant facts, and\n> > \n> > > (b) if the Court or Judge think it desirable to do so after taking into consideration any such comments, order that leave be given to the prosecutor or to the person representing the Minister to examine any witness giving evidence for the applicant or to adduce evidence tending to show why the certificate applied for should not be granted and adjourn the application so that that evidence may be adduced.\n> \n> > (3) If, in response to an application for a certificate under section 2 in relation to any proceedings, the prosecutor or, in the absence of the prosecutor, any person authorised to represent the Minister on the application adduces evidence to establish further relevant facts that were not established in those proceedings, the Court or Judge to which or to whom the application is made may—\n> > \n> > > (a) order that leave be given to the defendant to comment on the evidence of those relevant facts, and\n> > \n> > > (b) if the Court or Judge think it desirable to do so after taking into consideration any of those comments, order that leave be given to the defendant to examine any witness giving evidence for the prosecutor or that authorised person.\n> \n> **s 3A:** Ins 1971 No 1, sec 2. Am 2001 No 85, Sch 1 \\[3\\] \\[4\\]; 2001 No 121, Sch 2.67 \\[2\\] \\[3\\]; 2003 No 82, Sch 2.5; 2025 No 61, Sch 2.21\\[1\\] \\[2\\].","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Payment of costs","content":"#### 4 Payment of costs\n\n4 Payment of costs\n\n> > (1) A person to whom a certificate has been granted under this Act may apply to the Director-General for payment from the Consolidated Fund of costs incurred in the proceedings to which the certificate relates. The application is to be accompanied by a copy of the certificate.\n> \n> > (2) The Director-General may, if of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the making of a payment to the applicant is justified, determine the amount of costs that should be paid to the applicant, not exceeding the maximum amount referred to in subsection (3).\n> \n> > (3) The maximum amount is the amount that, in the opinion of the Director-General, would reasonably have been incurred for costs by the applicant in the proceedings, reduced by any amounts that, in the opinion of the Director-General, the applicant—\n> > \n> > > (a) has received or is entitled to receive, or\n> > \n> > > (b) would, if the applicant had exhausted all relevant rights of action and other legal remedies available to the applicant, be entitled to receive,\n> > \n> > independently of this Act, because of the applicant’s having incurred those costs.\n> \n> > (4) The Director-General may refuse an application under this section if of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the making of a payment to the applicant is not justified or (without limitation) if costs are otherwise recoverable.\n> \n> > (5) The Director-General may defer consideration of an application under this section for as long as the Director-General considers it necessary to do so to enable the Director-General to ascertain any amount referred to in subsection (3).\n> \n> > (6) The amount specified in the determination is payable from the Consolidated Fund to the applicant or to another person on the applicant’s behalf. Any payments from the Consolidated Fund under this section may be made without further appropriation than this Act.\n> \n> **s 4:** Subst 1998 No 49, Sch 5 \\[2\\].","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Director-General subrogated to rights of applicant","content":"#### 5 Director-General subrogated to rights of applicant\n\n5 Director-General subrogated to rights of applicant\n\n> > (1) Where payment is made to any person pursuant to section 4, the Director-General shall be subrogated, to the extent of the payment, to all the rights and remedies of that person, other than those provided under this Act, to recover costs incurred in the proceedings in respect of which application for the payment was made.\n> \n> > (2) Any moneys recovered by the Director-General pursuant to subsection (1) shall be paid to the Consolidated Fund.\n> \n> **s 5:** Am 1998 No 49, Sch 5 \\[3\\] \\[4\\].","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Certificate not admissible in evidence","content":"#### 6 Certificate not admissible in evidence\n\n6 Certificate not admissible in evidence\n\n> No certificate granted pursuant to this Act shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"6A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Delegation","content":"#### 6A Delegation\n\n6A Delegation\n\n> The Director-General may delegate any of his or her powers, authorities, duties or functions under this Act (other than this power of delegation) to an officer of the Attorney General’s Department.\n> \n> **s 6A:** Ins 1998 No 49, Sch 5 \\[5\\].","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"6B","sectionType":"section","heading":"Savings and transitional provisions relating to Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1998","content":"#### 6B Savings and transitional provisions relating to Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1998\n\n6B Savings and transitional provisions relating to [Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1998](/view/pdf/asmade/act-1998-49)\n\n> > (1) In this section—\n> > \n> > amending Act means the [Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1998](/view/pdf/asmade/act-1998-49).\n> > \n> > existing certificate means a certificate granted under this Act before the relevant commencement.\n> > \n> > relevant commencement means the commencement of the provision of the amending Act that substitutes section 4.\n> \n> > (2) This Act as in force before the relevant commencement continues to apply to and in respect of an existing certificate where an application had been made under this Act in connection with the certificate before that commencement.\n> \n> > (3) This Act as in force after the relevant commencement applies to and in respect of an existing certificate where an application had not been made under this Act in connection with the certificate before that commencement.\n> \n> > (4) The Governor may make regulations containing other provisions of a savings or transitional nature consequent on the enactment of Schedule 5 to the amending Act.\n> \n> > (5) Any such provision may, if the regulations so provide, take effect from the date of assent to the amending Act.\n> \n> > (6) To the extent to which any such provision takes effect from a date that is earlier than the date of its publication in the Gazette, the provision does not operate so as—\n> > \n> > > (a) to affect, in a manner prejudicial to any person (other than the State or an authority of the State), the rights of that person existing before the date of its publication, or\n> > \n> > > (b) to impose liabilities on any person (other than the State or an authority of the State) in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before the date of its publication.\n> \n> **s 6B:** Ins 1998 No 49, Sch 5 \\[5\\].","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Savings and transitional provisions relating to Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2001","content":"#### 7 Savings and transitional provisions relating to Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2001\n\n7 Savings and transitional provisions relating to [Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2001](/view/html/repealed/current/act-2001-085)\n\n> > (1) Sections 2 and 3A, as amended by the [Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2001](/view/html/repealed/current/act-2001-085), apply to and in respect of proceedings not finally determined before the commencement of the relevant amendment.\n> \n> > (2) Sections 2 and 3A, as in force immediately before their amendment by the [Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2001](/view/html/repealed/current/act-2001-085), continue to apply to and in respect of proceedings finally determined before the relevant amendment commenced.\n> \n> **s 7:** Rep 1999 No 85, Sch 4. Ins 2001 No 85, Sch 1 \\[5\\].","sortOrder":10}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act's fundamental purpose — enabling limited public reimbursement of defence costs where a prosecution was unreasonable on the known facts — has not materially expanded since 1967. Amendments have refined procedure, clarified that 'trial' includes special hearings and voir dires, and modernised administration, but the substantive test in s 3 and the certificate's effect remain anchored to the original intent."},"complexity_factors":["Layered conditional tests in s 2(1) for when a certificate can be granted (acquittal, discharge, DPP direction, or successful appeal)","Evidentiary machinery in s 3A allowing both sides to adduce further 'relevant facts' not aired at the original hearing, with procedural rights to comment and cross-examine","Broad administrative discretion given to the Director-General under s 4 to assess justification, quantum, and offsets for other recoveries","Multiple transitional and savings regimes (ss 6B, 7) that turn on the timing of applications and finalisation of proceedings","Cross-references to the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 and repeated amendment history"],"plain_english_summary":"**The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967** lets a court or judge give an acquitted person (or someone whose charges are dropped) a certificate that can unlock payment of their legal costs from government funds.\n\nIt applies when the court decides that, had prosecutors known all the important facts upfront, they would not have started the case, and that the defendant did nothing unreasonable to trigger or prolong the prosecution. The certificate is not an apology or a finding of misconduct by police or prosecutors — it simply opens the door to compensation.\n\nThe person applies to the Director-General of the Attorney General’s Department, who decides the amount (capped at what seems reasonable after subtracting any other money the person could claim). The government steps into the person’s shoes to recover any third-party costs if possible.\n\nThe law matters because it reduces the financial ruin that can follow even a successful defence to criminal charges, while keeping strict tests so public money is not handed out lightly."},"summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on the available information, the Act appears to have maintained its original core purpose — governing the award of costs in criminal proceedings in NSW — throughout its amendments. The successive updates since 1967 appear to be refinements and modernisations rather than fundamental expansions or contractions of its scope."},"complexity_factors":["Involves judicial discretion, meaning outcomes are not straightforward or predictable","Interacts with broader criminal procedure laws and court rules","Has been amended multiple times over nearly 60 years, creating layered interpretation challenges","Distinction between different court levels (Local Court, District Court, Supreme Court) may affect how costs are applied","Limited actual legislative text was provided, preventing full analysis of specific provisions and exceptions"],"plain_english_summary":"## Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW)\n\n**What is this law?**\nThis is a NSW law that governs when and how legal costs (lawyer's fees and court expenses) can be awarded in criminal cases. In plain terms, it sets the rules for who pays whose legal bills after a criminal matter is decided in court.\n\n**Who does it affect?**\n- People who have been charged with a criminal offence and are found not guilty (acquitted)\n- Prosecutors (typically the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions)\n- Courts handling criminal matters in NSW\n\n**Why does it matter?**\nBeing charged with a crime is expensive — even if you're innocent. This law gives courts the power to order that an acquitted (found not guilty) person's legal costs be paid, usually by the government. Without this kind of law, innocent people would be left out of pocket after successfully defending themselves against criminal charges.\n\n**Key points to know:**\n- The law has been in place since 1967 and has been updated multiple times, most recently in March 2026\n- It applies specifically to **criminal** cases (not civil disputes between private parties)\n- The NSW Attorney General is responsible for this law\n- Courts have discretion (choice) in whether to award costs — it is not automatic\n\n**Bottom line:** If you're charged with a crime in NSW and the case goes your way, this law is what allows you to potentially recover some of your legal expenses."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act as presented shows multiple insertions and substitutions noted in the text (for example, definition of Director‑General inserted (s 1A), substitution of section 4 in 1998 altering the Director‑General’s role (s 4), addition of section 3A permitting adducing further relevant facts (s 3A), insertion of delegation power (s 6A), and explicit inclusion of special hearings and preliminary proceedings within the meaning of 'trial' (s 2(3)). Those amendments broaden and clarify procedural coverage (e.g. special hearings under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act, s 2(3)) and shift administrative authority and discretion toward the Director‑General (s 4; s 6A). Transitional and savings provisions (s 6B, s 7) indicate the text adapts prior certificates and proceedings across amendment dates. Taken together, the documented amendments change the Act’s procedural scope and administrative allocation of decision‑making compared with earlier text by: extending the definition of proceedings covered, formalising post‑trial fact‑finding (s 3A), and centralising payment and recovery discretion in the Director‑General (s 4; s 5)."},"complexity_factors":["Judicial opinion requirement about a counterfactual: court must opine whether prosecution, with all relevant facts, would not have reasonably instituted proceedings (s 3(1)(a)) — creates legal and factual complexity.","Post‑trial adducing of further facts with cross‑examination and rebuttal procedures (s 3A(1)–(3)) — procedural complexity and evidentiary steps external to the original trial record.","Wide administrative discretion vested in the Director‑General to decide justification, amount, refuse or defer payment, and to assess recoverable sums (s 4(2), (3), (4), (5)) — introduces subjectivity and case‑by‑case assessment.","Financial calculations and offsets: maximum payable amount limited by reasonable costs less amounts the applicant has received or could obtain independently, requiring factual inquiry into alternate recoveries (s 4(3)).","Subrogation and recovery mechanisms: State steps into applicant’s recovery rights after payment and must manage recoveries back to Consolidated Fund (s 5(1)–(2)) — adds administrative enforcement dimension.","Non‑admissibility of certificates in evidence (s 6) — creates a rule limiting the utility of certificates outside the payment process.","Delegation power (s 6A) and transitional/savings provisions (s 6B, s 7) — institutional distribution of functions and amendment‑linked complexity."],"plain_english_summary":"What this law does, mechanically\n\n- The Act creates a two-step mechanism for reimbursing defendants in criminal proceedings when the court finds that the prosecution should not have proceeded. First, a Court or Judge can grant a special certificate to a defendant where the defendant is acquitted or discharged during or after trial, where the Director of Public Prosecutions directs no further proceedings, or where an appellate court quashes a conviction and dismisses the underlying charge (s 2). The certificate must record the court’s opinion that, had the prosecution possessed all relevant facts before commencing proceedings, it would not have been reasonable to start the proceedings, and that any defendant conduct that contributed to the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances (s 3(1)).\n\n- Second, the person holding that certificate may apply to the Director‑General of the Attorney‑General’s Department for payment from the Consolidated Fund of costs they incurred in those proceedings (s 4(1)). The Director‑General decides whether payment is justified, determines the payable amount up to a maximum that equals what reasonably would have been incurred less amounts the applicant has received or could independently recover (s 4(2)–(3)). The Director‑General may refuse payment, defer consideration while investigating recoverable amounts, and payments made are paid from the Consolidated Fund (s 4(4)–(6)).\n\n- When the Director‑General pays, the Director‑General succeeds to the applicant’s other rights to recover those costs to the extent of the payment, and any recoveries are returned to the Consolidated Fund (s 5).\n\n- The Act allows the court and prosecutor to take additional evidence when deciding whether to grant a certificate. A defendant may adduce facts not established at trial, and the prosecutor may be permitted to comment, to cross‑examine witnesses or to adduce evidence about why a certificate should not be granted. Likewise, the prosecutor may adduce further facts and the defendant may be allowed to respond (s 3A(1)–(3)). A certificate itself is not admissible in evidence in other proceedings (s 6).\n\n- The Director‑General may delegate most functions under the Act to officers of the Attorney‑General’s Department (s 6A). The Act contains transitional and savings provisions for earlier amendments (s 6B, s 7).\n\nWhy this matters (official purpose-claims and practical implications)\n\n- The Act’s stated mechanism is intended to compensate defendants who are acquitted, discharged, or whose convictions are quashed on the basis that proceedings should not reasonably have been instituted if the prosecution had known all relevant facts (s 2; s 3(1)). The procedural rule in s 3A explicitly permits additional facts to be brought forward after trial for the court to consider that question.\n\n- Who pays: payments come from the Consolidated Fund (s 4(6)). When payment is made, the public treasury becomes entitled to recover from third parties to the extent of the payment (s 5(1)–(2)).\n\n- Who decides: courts decide whether to grant the certificate (s 2; s 3(1)); the Director‑General decides whether payment is justified, the amount payable, whether to refuse or defer an application, and may exercise recovery rights after payment (s 4(2), (4)–(6); s 5). The Director‑General may delegate many functions (s 6A).\n\nIncentives, costs and trade-offs (mechanisms, not judgments)\n\n- Discretion and subjectivity. The court’s certificate requires an opinion about a hypothetical (whether, had the prosecution possessed all relevant facts before instituting proceedings, it would not have been reasonable to proceed) (s 3(1)(a)). The Director‑General’s decisions about whether payment is \"justified\" and about reasonable costs are explicitly opinion‑based (s 4(2)–(3)). These provisions concentrate important judgments in judicial opinion and in the Director‑General’s administrative discretion.\n\n- Evidence and information asymmetries. Section 3A lets defendants and prosecutors adduce facts not considered at trial and permits the other side to comment, cross‑examine or adduce rebuttal evidence (s 3A(2)–(3)). The prosecutor must be allowed to identify facts that were in the prosecutor’s possession when the decision to charge was made and that were not adduced at trial (s 3A(1)(c)(i)–(ii)). Those rules create a formal channel for addressing gaps between what was known to the prosecution pre‑charge and what emerged at trial.\n\n- Public cost and recovery. Payments are made from public funds (s 4(6)). After payment the Director‑General can pursue the applicant’s other recovery rights to recoup amounts paid (s 5(1)–(2)), which shifts some financial incentive to the State to seek reimbursements when possible. The Act also reduces what the Director‑General may pay by amounts the applicant has or could recover independently (s 4(3)).\n\n- Compliance and administrative burden on applicants. An applicant must hold a certificate and apply to the Director‑General with that certificate (s 4(1)). The Director‑General may defer consideration while ascertaining other recoverable amounts (s 4(5)). The requirement that the Director‑General discount amounts the applicant has or could obtain independently (s 4(3)) creates an investigative burden for the applicant and the Department.\n\n- Effect on prosecutorial behaviour and record‑keeping. Because s 3 and s 3A tie certificate decisions to what evidence the prosecutor possessed when deciding to institute proceedings (s 3(1)(a); s 3A(1)(c)(i)–(ii)), the Act creates a formal link between prosecutorial information at charge time and later cost consequences, which could affect how prosecutors document and retain material. The Act also permits prosecutors to contest additional facts raised in certificate applications (s 3A(2)–(3)).\n\nImplementation risk and uncertainty\n\n- Determining \"all relevant facts\" as a hypothetical before the start of proceedings involves fact‑finding and counterfactual judgment (s 3(1)(a)), which can be procedurally complex and may require post‑trial evidence (s 3A).\n\n- Assessing the reasonable amount of costs and what the applicant could independently recover involves discretionary financial assessments by the Director‑General (s 4(2)–(3)), with potential delays because consideration can be deferred (s 4(5)).\n\nLimited direct effect on private markets\n\n- The Act operates mainly between criminal defendants, courts, prosecutors and the State. It does not, on its face, change regulatory requirements for private businesses or markets. Its principal economic effect is to create a state‑funded route for compensating certain defendants for legal costs and to allow the State to recover those payments where possible (s 4; s 5).\n\nKey sections to consult quickly\n\n- Scope for certificates: s 2.  \n- Required content of certificate: s 3(1).  \n- Adducing further facts and procedure on applications: s 3A.  \n- Payment application and Director‑General’s discretion: s 4.  \n- Subrogation and recovery: s 5.  \n- Evidence rule: s 6.  \n- Delegation: s 6A.  \n\nSources: costs in criminal cases provisions as set out in sections 1–7 (including s 1A, s 2, s 3, s 3A, s 4, s 5, s 6, s 6A, s 6B, s 7)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967","history":"/api/acts/costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967/history","analysis":"/api/acts/costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/costs-in-criminal-cases-act-1967/documents"}}