How prosecution mistake handed man big win after anti-vax protest as evidence thrown out

Prosecutors have been forced to pay an anti-vaccine mandate protester’s court costs after bungling the case against him so badly most of their evidence was thrown out.

PROSECUTORS have been forced to pay an anti-vaccine mandate protester’s court costs after bungling the case against him so badly most of their evidence was thrown out.

Thomas Charles Hewitt-Jones was charged with assaulting police, rioting and breaching a chief health officer’s direction after cops alleged he threw an unknown liquid at them during the rally on November 6 last year.

In ordering prosecutors to pay Mr Hewitt-Jones’ costs from the time he was charged until the botched hearing in July, Judge Thomasin Opie said the circumstances were “exceptional” enough to warrant more than the standard cap of almost $2400.

Ms Opie said the hearing was listed for two days, with prosecutors planning to call 18 witnesses and tender various documents, including photos and videos.

But Mr Hewitt-Jones’ lawyers objected, saying most of the evidence against him was inadmissible as it had not been disclosed to them prior to the hearing as required by law.

The court agreed, excluding all but five of the prosecution’s witnesses and a handful of still photos from being admitted and just two witnesses were called on day one of the hearing, with three more scheduled for day two.

“At the conclusion of the first day’s evidence, counsel for the defence indicated that the prosecution case must fail for lack of identification evidence and urged the prosecution to consider withdrawing the charges,” Ms Opie said.

Protesters tussle with police during the rally in November last year. Picture: Julianne Osborne

“The prosecutor indicated that he would consider the matter overnight, on the second day of the hearing the prosecutor called no further evidence.

“The defence submitted that there was no case to answer and the court dismissed all charges against the defendant.”

Ms Opie said “of particular concern” was the prosecution’s failure to disclose an expert report said to be “favourable to the defence” until five days before the hearing.

Ms Opie ruled the legal issues involved in the case were also “exceptional”, saying they were “more complex than routine assault police charges” and whether the police were authorised to enforce the CHO orders was in dispute.

She said there was “no explanation” provided for the prosecution’s failure to disclose “such a large quantity of highly relevant evidence” in a timely manner and noted Mr Hewitt-Jones was at risk of deportation if found guilty.

“In circumstances where the issues were complex, the stakes were high and the number of witnesses significant, I find that the legal issues were also of an exceptional nature,” she said.