Ravenscroft v Rederiaktiebologet Transatlantic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
DPP
and
Silver
Costs - refusal - suspicious conduct
Costs order proper
An order refusing an acquitted defendant his costs under paragraph 2.1(a) of Practice Direction (Crime: Costs) ([1989] 1 WLR 625), on the ground that his own conduct had brought suspicion on himself, was a perfectly proper one and could not be interfered with by the High Court unless it was one which no reasonable bench of justices could reach on the evidence.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Beldam and Mr Justice Laws) so held on May 15 in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by Mr Brian Silver against the decision of Wells Street Justices refusing him his costs from central funds having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Hunter v British Coal Corporation and Others
... ... This was the decision in Alcock : see also Ravenscroft v Red. Akt. Transatlantic , CA, 30 March 1992. That the same principles prima facie apply to ... ...
-
Martha Sarah Young Against Arthur Macvean
...reform.” [40] Mr Milligan also referred to the facts and circumstances in the case of Ravenscroft v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1992] 2 All ER 470 and Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd [1994] PIQR 329. In Ravenscroft the plaintiff had learned about her son’s death on arrival at the h......