R Maninder Singh v Ealing Magistrates Court The Crown Prosecution Service (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bean |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1443 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/12535/2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 08 May 2014 |
and
[2014] EWHC 1443 (Admin)
Lord Justice Beatson
Mr Justice Bean
Case No: CO/12535/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Iain Morley QC and Jonathan Starck (instructed by Starck Uberoi) for the Claimant
Alistair Richardson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Interested Party
The Defendant court did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 01 May 2014
This is the judgment of the court.
The claimant was charged on 29 th April 2013 with possession of a controlled drug and driving while unfit through drugs. He was bailed to attend the Ealing Magistrates' court on 17 th May. He attended on that day together with a legal representative for whom he was paying himself. The hearing on 17 th May was entirely abortive since no prosecution papers were available. The claimant's advocate applied for costs against the prosecution pursuant to section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Both the substantive hearing and the application for costs were adjourned to 23 rd May.
On 23 rd May the claimant appeared before a deputy district judge and pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled drug. He was sentenced to a fine of £75 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £20. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of driving whilst unfit which was adjourned for trial. The judge then considered the defence application for the costs of the 17 th May hearing under section 19 and refused it. A note of the judge's oral decision made by the deputy clerk to the justices reads as follows:-
"Who was responsible for the wasted hearing?
What could have been done to avoid this?
Fact – defendant arrested and taken to Acton Police Station. Taken and charged with 2 matters. Process of Police involves OIC (officer in case) preparing papers and leaving it in a tray. As I understand it is a tray designated for papers.
OIC has no further involvement in administration. Papers are then collected by the case progression unit – who they are is still unclear to me. Case progression officers then hand papers on to prosecution.
Matter didn't proceed on 17/05/2013 as someone in the case progression unit didn't do their job or missed the papers or that person who was responsible to hand papers to the CPS didn't.
However, no clear identification of party responsible. Statutory test states we need to identify the party whose fault it was. Unable to identify the party in the statutory test I have to apply. Cannot make wasted costs order.
Application fails."
On 23 rd August the claimant sought judicial review of the judge's decision refusing his application for costs. The CPS was served as an interested party. On 18 th January 2014 permission was granted on the papers by Irwin J. For reasons which will appear later in this judgment Mr Morley QC for the claimant and Mr Richardson for the Crown Prosecution Service jointly invited us to treat the matter as if it were an appeal by way of case stated on the correctness or otherwise of the judge's decision in addition to a judicial review application.
Section 19(1) of the 1985 Act enables regulations to be made giving criminal courts power:-
"….in any case where the court is satisfied that one party to criminal proceedings has incurred costs as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission by, or on behalf of, another party to the proceedings, to make an order as to the payment of those costs."
Regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 repeats the wording of the test set out in section 19(1) of the Act. It should be noted at the outset that the power is older than, and distinct from, the jurisdiction to make wasted costs orders against legal representatives, created by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and set out in section 19A of the 1985 Act.
The judge refused an order for costs because it was not possible to identify "the party whose fault it was". As Mr Richardson accepts, this reasoning cannot be supported. All too often, when a mistake is made in the preparation or conduct of a CPS prosecution, the police and the CPS blame one another. But for the purposes of section 19 no distinction can be drawn between them: the "party" on the other side from the accused in such a case is the Crown. It is therefore agreed that the judge made an error of law.
Mr Richardson, however, submits that this was not a case for any order for costs to be made under section 19, even on the findings of fact contained in the judge's decision.
The leading case on the interpretation of section 19 is Director of Public Prosecutions v Denning [1991] 2 QB 532. Nolan LJ observed at 540C that the power can be exercised at any stage, and is distinct from any general order for costs made at the end of the case. At 541C he said:-
"… the word "improper" in this context does not necessarily connote some grave impropriety. Used, as it is, in conjunction with the word "unnecessary" it is, in my judgment, intended to cover an act or omission which would not have occurred if the party concerned had conducted his case properly."
In R (Commissioners of Customs and Excise) v Crown Court at Leicester [2001] EWHC Admin 33 Lord Woolf CJ said:-
"An examination of the language of the Regulations makes it clear that the proper exercise of the jurisdiction under Regulation 3 requires, first, the judge to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eric Evans and Others v The Serious Fraud Office
...JP 390 (" Rexmore"), Bentley-Thomas v Winkfield Parish Council [2013] EWHC 356 (Admin) (" Bentley-Thomas") at [17]–[18] and R (Singh) v Ealing Magistrates' Court [2014] EWHC 1443 (Admin) (" Singh") at [7]) including at least one Divisional Court over which the Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf ......
-
R (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Aylesbury Crown Court and Another
...and the CPS who are two arms of the Crown and therefore can be regarded as indivisible for these purposes: see R (on the application of Maninder Singh) v Ealing Magistrates' Court [2014] EWHC 1443 (Admin), where the Divisional Court (Beatson LJ and Bean J) said this at para 4: "All too ofte......
-
R v Dr Errol Cornish (First Defendant) Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (Second Defendant)
...Commissioners) v Leicester Crown Court [2001] EWHC Admin 33; Bentley-Thomas v Winkfield Parish Council [2014] LLR 413; and R (Singh) v Ealing Magistrates' Court [2014] 1978 JP 253. 2.3 R v P [2011] EWCA Crim. 1130. 12 In this case, the crown court judge made a costs order against the CPS on......
-
O-Shing v Crown Prosecution Service
...had been referred ( Evans v Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 263 QB; Singh, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates' Court [2014] EWHC 1443 (Admin); Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court [2017] EWHC 2987 (Admin) and Re Joseph Hill & Co. ......