PRATT -v- WA POLICE [2026] WASC 175 (S)

[2026] WASC 175 (S) Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CRIMINAL CITATION : PRATT -v- WA POLICE [2026] WASC 175 (S) CORAM : LUNDBERG J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 29 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : SJA 1034 of 2025 BETWEEN : TAMMY LYNETTE PRATT Appellant AND WA POLICE Respondent ON APPEAL FROM: For File No : SJA 1034 of 2025 Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram : MAGISTRATE R YOUNG File Number : PE 38755-38756/2024 - PE 63942-63943/2024 Catchwords: Costs - Criminal law - Single judge appeal from a decision of a Magistrate under div 2 pt 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 2004 (WA) - Appellant wholly unsuccessful on appeal - Respondent claims costs assessed pursuant to the Legal Profession (Supreme and District Courts) (Contentious Business) Determination -- 1 of 7 -- [2026] WASC 175 (S) Page 2 2024 - Whether appellant should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal - Whether quantum of costs should be fixed - Turns on own facts Legislation: Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(1)(h) Result: Appellant to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,970. Category: B Representation: Counsel: Appellant : No Appearance Respondent : No Appearance Solicitors: Appellant : In Person Respondent : State Solicitor's Office Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164 Pratt v WA Police [2026] WASC 175 RGM v Chopping [No 2] [2026] WASC 116 (S) Smolarek v Roper [2009] WASCA 124 (S) Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39 (S) -- 2 of 7 -- [2026] WASC 175 (S) LUNDBERG J Page 3 LUNDBERG J: 1 On 8 May 2026, the court published its reasons for dismissing the appeal against the four convictions recorded against the appellant in the Magistrates Court (Primary Reasons).1 2 The successful respondent now seeks an order that the appellant pay the costs of the appeal in the sum of $2,970. I refer to the respondent's application dated 21 May 2026 and the supporting affidavit affirmed on 21 May 2026 by a managing law clerk of the State Solicitor's Office, Mr Adrian Jones. 3 The supporting affidavit attaches a draft bill of costs prepared by counsel for the respondent 'having regard to the entries recorded in the [State Solicitor's Office] Time and Matter Costings programme'. 4 The draft bill delineates the claim for costs as follows: No. Description of work Scale Item Date Amount 1 Notice of the respondent's intention 25(a) 18/8/2025 $210 2 Preparation of appeal, including provision of advice, correspondence, arranging disclosure, preparation of submissions (in excess of 10 hours JP but say 7 hours JP @ $230/hour) 25(f) 19/8/2025 to 4/5/2026 $1,610 3 Getting up and attendance at hearing, 2 hour hearing (5 hours at JP @ $230/hr) 25(g) 5/5/2026 $1,150 Total $2,970 5 The respondent's draft bill of costs claims various amounts by reference to scale item 25 in the Legal Profession (Supreme and District Courts) (Contentious Business) Determination 2024. In my view, the appropriate scale item should be item 26, which expressly concerns single judge appeals rather than appeals to the Court of Appeal. The terms of the two items are not materially different, though. The amounts claimed by the respondent in the draft bill would appear to correspond to item 26(a), item 26(d), and item 26(e). The 1 Pratt v WA Police [2026] WASC 175. I will use definitions from the Primary Reasons in these reasons. -- 3 of 7 -- [2026] WASC 175 (S) LUNDBERG J Page 4 scale maxima for these items is respectively $572, $5,2802 and $15,840. 6 The draft bill claims for work at a rate (being $230 per hour) which is much less than the hourly rate for junior practitioners in cl 13 of the scale (being $418 per hour). 7 In the context of appeals to a single judge brought under div 2 pt 2 of the CAA, against a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction, the court is empowered by s 14(1)(h) of the CAA to make an order as to the costs of the appeal and as to the costs of the proceedings in the court of summary jurisdiction. 8 The relevant principles as to the exercise of the costs discretion in this context were set out by the Court of Appeal in Wilson v McDonald.3 In short, it may be accepted that the provisions of the CAA with respect to costs are not to be construed as importing a general rule to the effect that costs should ordinarily follow the event.4 9 Rather, I should have regard to all relevant considerations, including whether the unsuccessful party commenced the proceedings, the result of the proceedings, whether the unsuccessful party's submissions were accepted in part by the court, and whether the appeal involved a point of law of public importance, or a point of law that required reconciliation of conflicting authority. 10 The order as to costs is opposed by the appellant. The appellant advances the following submissions against the making of the order, in summary:5 (a) The appellant asserts she is not in a financial position to satisfy the proposed costs order by immediate payment. The appellant notes she is an individual litigant of limited financial means and is presently experiencing significant financial hardship arising from matters connected with these proceedings, including existing court-related financial obligations already subject to a Work and Development Permit arrangement. 2 Noting that the scale maximum for item 26(d) should likely be $5,720, being 10 hours at the senior practitioner rate of $572 per hour. 3 Wilson v McDonald [2009] WASCA 39 (S) [10] (Martin CJ, Beech AJA agreeing). 4 See also the summary of the principles recently set out in RGM v Chopping [No 2] [2026] WASC 116 (S) [5] - [11]. 5 Email from the appellant to the court sent on 28 May 2026. -- 4 of 7 -- [2026] WASC 175 (S) LUNDBERG J Page 5 (b) The appellant respectfully submits that any costs ordered should, in the interests of justice and proportionality, either 'be remitted entirely', or alternatively stayed, or alternatively be permitted to be incorporated into the existing Work and Development Permit or other approved enforcement arrangement currently in place in relation to court-imposed liabilities associated with this matter. (c) The appellant submits that the appeal was brought genuinely and not frivolously or vexatiously, and 'concerned issues the appellant believed raised matters of procedural fairness, lawfulness of police conduct, and the administration of justice'. (d) The appellant has requested that the court consider her limited financial capacity, the absence of any improper motive in pursuing the appeal, the public importance of ensuring litigants are not deterred from pursuing appeals due solely to financial hardship, and the fact that immediate enforcement of the proposed costs would likely cause substantial hardship disproportionate to the amount claimed. 11 In my view, the costs of the appeal should be borne by the appellant. I reach that view having regard to the following matters. 12 First, the appellant instituted the appeal and the appellant was not successful on any grounds of appeal. 13 Further, the appellant advanced several broad grounds of challenge to the decision of the Magistrate, which it can be inferred required extensive work on the part of the respondent's solicitors to respond to the appeal, given the terms of the respondent's outline of submissions. The appellant also brought several unmeritorious interlocutory applications during the course of the appeal which likely added to the costs of the appeal itself. 14 Further still, the appellant's appeal was capable of being dealt with by the application of orthodox legal principles and did not involve any points of law of public importance or any points of law which required reconciliation of conflicting authority. -- 5 of 7 -- [2026] WASC 175 (S) LUNDBERG J Page 6 15 In my view, the appellant's asserted financial incapacity to pay the costs, at least by immediate payment, is not a relevant matter which should be considered in the exercise of the court's discretion.6 16 Moreover, the appellant's submission that the appeal was brought genuinely and not frivolously or vexatiously does not go particularly far. The essence of the court's conclusions in the Primary Reasons was that the appeal grounds lacked any merit. This matter is not one in which the court could see a proper basis for the appeal to have been brought and, indeed, the appellant demonstrated at first instance as well as on appeal an adherence to 'pseudo-law' concepts, which has a strong tendency to undermine the reasonableness of her contention that she believed the appeal 'raised matters of procedural fairness, lawfulness of police conduct, and the administration of justice'. 17 In short, there is nothing in the underlying conduct of the appellant which led to the charges being laid, nor her approach at the trial of the matter at first instance before the Magistrate, nor on appeal, which would weigh in favour of the orders she seeks, or which weighs against an order that the costs of the appeal should be borne by her. 18 As to the quantum of the costs claimed, the amounts claimed by the respondent in the draft bill of costs are reasonable and appropriate, having regard to the items of work which have been claimed by the respondent and having regard to my own assessment of the work undertaken by the respondent's solicitors as well as my personal experience as to the time likely to have been taken by solicitors to attend to that work. The overall amount claimed is quite modest given the work likely to have been involved in preparing the appeal. 19 Finally, I should say there is no reason to reduce the amount claimed, nor to somehow incorporate the costs order into the Work and Development Permit arrangements which are otherwise in place. 20 I will therefore order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal fixed in the sum of $2,970. 6 Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164 [26] - [33] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ), referring specifically to the position in Western Australia as expressed by the Court of Appeal in Smolarek v Roper [2009] WASCA 124 (S) [11] (Wheeler, Pullin and Newnes JJA) [11]. -- 6 of 7 -- [2026] WASC 175 (S) LUNDBERG J Page 7 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. IR Associate to the Hon Justice Lundberg 29 MAY 2026 -- 7 of 7 --