Appeal against wasted costs order made against solicitor. He had information suggesting that an essential prosecution witness might not appear, but she did.
Held: The solicitor had acted correctly: ‘The function of committal is to see if there is a prima facie case. As a result of that there would be no prima facie case.’ and ‘the result was unsuccessful in the sense that the girl did come to court and did express a willingness to give evidence. It does not follow, however, that the solicitor acted improperly or unreasonably. In the same way it does not matter if other solicitors night have decided to take the cautious course of getting in touch with the police or the Crown Prosecution Service and suggesting that the girl was thinking of not giving evidence. I am happy to apply the test which seems to me the right one as to whether or not his conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. I think that it does and he has provided that explanation. I would therefore allow the appeal and quash the wasted costs order. ‘
Citations:
[1996] EWHC Admin 309
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Massaro QBD 1973
The defendant faced committal proceedings for an alleged sexual assault on a young girl. He told the prosecutor of his wish to cross-examine her. The prosecution refused to subject her to the experience of giving evidence at the preliminary hearing . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136857