Courts of Appeal
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838304700402 |
| Published date | 01 November 1983 |
| Date | 01 November 1983 |
| Published By | Sage Publications, Inc. |
| Subject Matter | Comments on Cases |
COURTS
OF
APPEAL
ORDER
TO PAY COSTS LIMITED TO
PROSECUTION
COSTS
Some indication of the cost to the country of the administration of
the criminal law is afforded by the decisions on the Costs in Criminal
Cases Act 1973. In R. v. Maher [1983] 2W.L.R. 764, the
prosecution's estimate of its costs was no less than £1,320,000 and
that was notwithstanding the fact that before the end of the trial, all
the accused had pleaded guilty to certain counts. Three of the
appellants were charged with
murder
and (together with a fourth
appellant) with conspiracy to import and supply heroin. The judge
made orders for costs in the sum of £1 ,035,000. These orders were
attackedon two grounds. First, it was said that the appellants had no
assets, for, although one was said to have £25 million, his assets
were frozen by the New Zealand Government. The Court of
Appeal concluded, however, that there were assets which it was in
the power of the appellants to control and that the order was
justified even though it might prove impossible in the event to
enforce it. Secondly, it was said that the judge had taken insufficient
account of the pleas of guilty. The authorities make it clearthat such
a plea is a factor which a judge must take into account when
considering whether to make an
order
for costs. Indeed, in R. v.
Matthews (1979) 1Cr.App.R.(S) 346, Lord Widgery
C.l.
seems to
have suggested that where there has been a plea of guilty, some
special reason for ordering costs must be shown before an
order
can
be made. In the present case, however, the court declared that these
remarks were not intended to lay down a general principle, but were
intended to be limited to the facts of that case. The importance of
the plea depends upon the nature of the case and on the stage at
which the plea istendered. Here, the various pleas were tendered at
various stages and, although the court conceded that
"the
pleas are
to their credit", it held that the nature of the case was such that it
was proper to make an
order
for costs even though long terms of
imprisonment had also been imposed.
Although the court thus held against the appellants on both the
224
Courts
of
Appeal
points on which they relied, it nonetheless allowed the appeals and
varied the orders which
had
been made.
The
costs referred to in the
Act of 1973 relate to
"the
whole or any part of the costs in or
about
the prosecution and conviction, including any proceedings before
the examining magistrates". The court raised the question whether
all the expenditure taken into account by the trial judge were
"costs" within this phrase. In particular, does the term include
payments made to the jury; or those made for overtime to court
officials; or for the travel expenses of investigating officers; or for
special security at the judge's lodgings?
The
court agreed that all
these payments could be said to have been "incurred in or about the
prosecution", as required by section 4(1) of the Act. But the court
held that the word "costs" in litigation is
not
the same as
"the
cost
of'
the litigation.
It
concluded that the costs in question must be
limited to those which in the first instance are chargeable to the
prosecution and, as such, they are limitedto the items payable to the
prosecution out of central funds. Thus, payments to the jury or for
any of the purposes set
out
above, although no doubt"incurredin or
about the prosecution or conviction" are not
part
of the "costs" in
the restricted sense, for in that sense the costs must have been
"incurred by" the prosecutor. Section 3 of the Act limits costs
payable
out
of central funds to expenses properly incurred by the
prosecutor or his witnesses. As the only items establishing costs in
the restricted
sense-counsels'
fees, the costs of the D.P.P. and
witnesses'
expenses-came
to no more than £180,000, the orders
were varied to that sum.
The
court added that while the prosecution
should always be ready to give an estimate of its costs, that estimate
should not be an over-estimate.
In view of the increasing burden imposed on the public by the
need to prosecute such cases, might it not be thought that the time is
ripe for the amendment of the Act of 1973, to make it clear that the
words of section 4(1) should be read literally, so that the convicted
person may become liable to pay such a sum as will cover not only
payments made by the prosecutor but any
other
sums which are, as
the subsection states, "incurred in or
about
the prosecution"? A
convicted criminal who, it is claimed, has £25 million, should be
required to contribute more than (his share of) £180,000. It is the
public which has to pay the balance of the £1,320,000.
225
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting