The driver had successfully appealed against his conviction at the Magistrates, the court finding that the officer had not shown that he had asked a required question. He now appealed against refusal of an award of costs, the court having said that he had brought the prosecution on his own head by his conduct. The Crown Court refused to state a case.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Applying the Practice Direction, the Crown Court could not at the same time say that both that the defence was a mere technicality and acquit him. It was wrong at the same time to acquit him amd suggest that he was guilty of the offence. Also it was not sufficient to find that the defendant had brought the prosecution on himself. The Direction also required that he had misled the prosecution in some way as to the likelihodd of the success of the prosecution. That could not be said here.
Judges:
Richards LJ, Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 665 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs)
Citing:
Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs) 2004
‘Where a person is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted, or in respect of which proceedings against him have been sent for trial or transferred for trial, or has been acquitted on any count in the indictment, the court may make a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Costs
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346850
