R v Snow [1919] HCA 48

High Court of Australia|1919-07-01|Before: Rich JJ, Isaacs J, Barton J, Ricu JJ

H.C. or A, Criminal Law - Trial before High Court - Costs of trial - Jurisdiction to order 1919. convicted person to pay costs - Judiciary Act 1903-1915 (No. 6 of 1903 - No. ey, 4 of 1915), secs. 2, 26.

ADELAIDE, 'The High Court has jurisdiction under sec. 26 of the Judiciary Act 1903- Oct. 2. 1915 to order a person who has been tried and convicted on indictment before

rar tannicnsen that Court to pay the costs of the trial.

This was a prosecution on indictment of Francis Hugh Snow for trading with the enemy contrary to the Trading with the Enemy Acts.

The accused was convicted, and by my judgment I sentenced him to pay a fine of £2000.

I stated that if I had the legal power I would order, and subject to the reservation of the question hereinafter mentioned, did order, as part of the said judgment, the accused also to pay the costs of the trial.

4, At the request of Sir Josiah Symon K.C., of counsel for the accused, I agreed to reserve, and do hereby reserve, for the considera- tion of the Full Court the following question, namely, whether I had the legal power to order the accused to pay the costs of the trial as aforesaid.

Piper K.C. (with him Blackburn), for the accused. Although the language of sec. 26 of the Judiciary Act is very wide, the whole of the Act should be looked at in determining whether the section was

e in mind that the pre-existing rule throughout the States generally was that the Courts had no power to direct the costs of criminal trials to be paid by convicted persons. If sec. 26 has the wide meaning suggested, the provision in sec. 64 giving power to award costs would be unnecessary so far at least as suits to which

limited to proceedings to which subjects alone are parties.

Cleland K.C. and F. Villeneuve Smith K.C., for the Crown, were

Barton J. The sections in Part IX. of the Judiciary Act have properly been brought before the Court by counsel for the sed ; but, having regard to the definitions in sec. 2 of that Act, and to the largeness of sec. 26, 1 do not think that the contention

A "suit" is an action or original proceeding between parties, and sec. 64 is limited to that kind of proceeding. " Cause "

, eve " is larger still, and includes all proceedings which are "suit " and " cause," and more : it includes all proceed- gs before the Court. Then we find that the scope of sec. 26 extends "all matters." In those the High Court has jurisdiction to award

in any relevant way, that jurisdiction, which, not qualified or trolled, must, in my opinion, be exercisable according to judicial etion. That being so, it seems to me that my brother Jsaacs

vas right in awarding costs. The' question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative.

Solicitor for the Crown, Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicitor for the nonwealth.

Solicitors for the accused, Bakewell, Stow & Piper.

intended to deal with the costs of criminal trials. It should also be H- C. or A.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (20 paragraphs)

Cited By (1)