It was capable of being an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial, to refuse to order payment of his costs after an acquittal in such a manner as to cast doubt on his innocence. ‘In the Court’s judgment, the presumption of innocence will be violated if, without the accused’s having previously been proved guilty according to law and, notably, without his having had the opportunity of exercising his rights of defence, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty. This may be so even in the absence of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty.’
8660/79, (1983) 5 EHRR 554,  ECHR 4
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 12-May-2003
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion.
Held: The making . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor) PC 28-Jun-2005
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Costs, Criminal Practice
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.164916