The defendant applied for its costs. It had been convicted for a breach of the Regulations, but the Inspector had not had the power to make the request it had denied.
Held: ‘The present case is one in which the prosecution failed as a matter of law. Moreover, it failed because the offence with which the appellant was charged did not exist. In these circumstances the question whether costs have been incurred as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission by the prosecutor is one which naturally arises.
The fact is, however, that when the appellant sought a preliminary ruling in the Crown Court that the facts alleged did not amount to an offence within the scope of the Regulations, the judge after hearing four days of legal argument gave a detailed written judgment in which he rejected the appellant’s arguments. Then, when after pleading guilty to the charge in the light of the judge’s ruling the appellant applied for permission to appeal, permission was initially refused by the single judge on consideration of the papers. In those circumstances we think it impossible to say that the prosecution was improperly brought or that the case was improperly advanced by the respondent in the Crown Court. In particular, we think it impossible to say in those circumstances that it was or should have been plain that the prosecution case was without legal merit.’
Citations:
[2018] EWCA Crim 1554, [2018] WLR(D) 409
Links:
Statutes:
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – M Najib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service CACD 26-Apr-2018
The company appealed against its conviction under the 2010 Regulation for failing to provide the required assistance for the taking of samples by an inspector. The company admitted the facts but said that the cost of compliance was too high, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.619874
