Divisional Court Cases
| Date | 01 July 1960 |
| Published date | 01 July 1960 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836002400304 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
COSTS ON SUMMARY TRIAL
R. v. Burt: ex parte Presburg
IT is well established
that
costs are not to be awarded as a
penalty: see R. v. Highgate Justices: ex parte Petrou (1954,
1W.L.R. 485; 1954, J.C.L. 142).
In
the
present case (1960, 2
W.L.R. 398)
the
question arose whether any costs over and
above actual disbursements were payable when
the
prosecutor
and sole witness was a police officer who of course was entitled
to
the
same salary whether he attended at court or was engaged
in other duties.
It
must
frequently happen in minor road
traffic offences, which form so large a bulk of
the
work in
magistrates' courts,
that
the
only evidence for the prosecution
consists of
that
given by one or more police officers so
that
the
present decision is of some general importance.
The
facts giving rise to this case were by no means
unusual.
The
defendant had been charged with failing to
conform to a traffic sign.
The
information came before a
metropolitan magistrate at Bow Street Magistrates'Courton
the
r
rth
March 1959.
The
defendant who was legally represented
pleaded
'Not
Guilty'. A police officer who was
the
sole witness
for
the
prosecution conducted
the
case himself. After hearing
his evidence and
that
of
the
defendant
the
magistrate found
that
the
case had been proved and fined the defendant
20S.
and further ordered him to pay
£2
2S.
costs.
The
defendant's
solicitor asked why an order for costs was made and to this the
magistrate
answered-"Because
I say so."
It
was
then
pointed
out
to him
that
the
prosecution had not incurred any advocate's
fees
but
the magistrate did not give any further reason for his
decision merely replying,
"That
is my order."
The
defendant thereafter sought to have
the
order for
costs quashed on
the
ground
that
it had been made in excess of
jurisdiction.
The
magistrate filed an affidavit in which he
stated
that
after convicting
the
defendant he had considered
what costs had been incurred by the prosecution.
He
esti-
lSI
To continue reading
Request your trial