Australia, June 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 29:

1. Before the Court are proceedings for judicial review of a decision by a magistrate to reject an application for a costs order under s 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The Magistrate heard and rejected the application at the conclusion of a trial at which two charges of assault were dismissed against the Plaintiff. After the close of the Crown case, the Magistrate dismissed the charges because his Honour found that there was no prima facie case against the Plaintiff.

2. There is no basis for the relief claimed by the Plaintiff and, in any event, relief ought to be declined in the exercise of the Court's discretion.

Background

Original incident

3. As at 2021 the Plaintiff operated a business which included taking photographs of families and children, especially newborn babies.

4. The case arises out of an incident on 20 May 2021 which occurred at the Plaintiff's photography studio in Sydney. Throughout the trial the Plaintiff often referred to the location as her home. It is not relevant to any issue before the Court whether the studio is attached to the Plaintiff's home, located within the home or completely separate from it.

5. On the day in question a family arrived having previously booked to have photographs taken of their newborn baby. They arrived at the foyer of the building in which the studio was located. I will refer to the baby as Baby N and the mother as Ms N. The father, Mr N, his adult sister-in-law and a couple of other children were also in the foyer.

6. The N Family was late. They had booked for 9:00am but did not arrive until 9:30am, apparently hampered by traffic. When the Plaintiff met the N Family in the foyer there appears to have been an immediate dispute. To the extent the facts can be discerned, it seems that the dispute was about three adults attending when the Plaintiff would not permit more than two adults in her studio. The lack of punctuality may not have helped. The Plaintiff left the foyer but was soon persuaded to return. She then went up in the elevator with the N Family minus the sister-in-law. They went to the studio where the Plaintiff took some photographs. At some point Mr N took the other children away so that only the Plaintiff, Ms N and Baby N remained in the studio. More photographs were taken.

7. Another dispute ensued between the Plaintiff and Ms N. Whether it was a new dispute or an evolution of the earlier dispute does not matter.

8. Using her mobile telephone, Ms N started to make video recordings of the interaction. She ultimately made three video recordings. For some of the video recordings the telephone appears to have been located in Ms N's pocket (or similar) so there are no images for those parts of the interaction. There is, however, audio.

9. The three video recordings were adduced into evidence as Exhibit F in these Supreme Court proceedings. They reveal an argument in which Ms N was complaining about the service being provided and the Plaintiff was asking Ms N to leave. Baby N cried intermittently throughout.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19714c9efa943c5f0c798c13)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.