Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove: QBD 17 Jun 1999

The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide sufficient information the justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences about what they might be. Costs orders are not to be used to punish the defendant for exercising his right to defend himself. Lord Bingham C : ‘While there is no requirement that any sum ordered by justices to be paid to a prosecutor by way of costs should stand in any arithmetical relationship to any fine imposed, the costs ordered to be paid should not in the ordinary way be grossly disproportionate to the fine’.


Lord Bingham CJ


Times 17-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 499, [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136




Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18

Cited by:

CitedInterfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
CitedBrooklyn House Ltd v Commission for Social Care Inspection Admn 25-May-2006
The defendant company had been convicted of failing to keep proper drugs records in the nursing home it ran.
Held: The prosecution by the CSCI ws necessarily authorised by the CSCI. As to the issue of intention, the offences alleged were ones . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85434