The defendant had been acquitted. Orders had been made both for payment of his legal costs, and also for re-imbursement of his own costs. The defendant was accused of serious fraud, and had engaged an American attorney to assist him before instructing English solicitors.
Held: It was preferable for such costs applications to be made and heard together. Once the costs officer accepted that some re-imbursement should be made, he was obliged to conduct some investigation as to what had been done. The judge had carried out only a broad brush assessment. ‘when a determining officer or a Costs Judge is faced with an application of this sort under a defendant’s costs order, his first task is to ascertain whether the expenditure was ‘properly incurred . . in the proceedings’ (section 16(6)) and whether it is work that has been ‘reasonably done’ (Regulation 7(1A)). In addition, Regulation 7(2) requires the appropriate authority to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case ‘including the nature, importance, complexity or difficulty of the work and the time involved’. There was a real risk of injustice to the defendant, and the decision must be revisited.
Judges:
Maurice Kay LJ, Mitting J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1955 (Admin), Times 16-Aug-2006, [2007] 1 Costs LR 20
Links:
Statutes:
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ahmed v Stanley A Coleman and Hill CA 18-Jun-2002
The court considered the significance of CPR 52.13(2): ‘The restriction on second appeals is important because Parliament has made it clear that it wishes pretrial disputes in civil litigation to be dealt with, on the whole, at a level lower than . .
Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .
Cited – Regina v Supreme Court Taxing Office Ex Parte John Singh and Co QBD 3-May-1995
A Taxing Master’s refusal of a certificate for point of principle on taxation is reviewable. Henry LJ: ‘Counsel for the Taxing Master conceded that such a jurisdiction existed but submitted that it should be restricted to cases where there had been . .
Cited – Regina v Bedlington Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Wilkinson Admn 21-Oct-1999
In addition to assessment of his solicitor’s bill of costs, the acquitted defendant claimed pounds 3,971.50 as ‘the costs of a specialist graphics contractor’ who had been instructed and paid directly by the defendant.
Held: Moses J stated: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Costs
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.243984