[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Horner, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 1607 (Admin) (13 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1607.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 1607 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		13th June 2006

Tuesday, 13th June 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: As we have already indicated, the appeal is no longer pursued and has been dismissed. The sole remaining question is the question of the respondent's application for costs in the sum of £3,238.
2. The point made on behalf of the appellant by Mr Sonn is that a substantial proportion of those costs related to a hearing on 11th November last year at which it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the case stated was inadequate. The court agreed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates for the purpose of their putting right the deficiency in the case stated. He submits, accordingly, that where the costs have not essentially been, he would submit, incurred by reason of the appeal itself but by reason of the fault of the Magistrates, it simply would be unfair to require him to pay the costs of that hearing.
3. It seems to me that that overlooks the important issue here which is that this was a purely technical defence put forward on behalf of the appellant which was unsuccessful before the Magistrates. There was no justification for an appeal. It was a technical point devoid of any merit whatsoever. It seems to me that in those circumstances those who take points such as that must expect that they will have to pay for the consequences, ultimately, of their having taken up the time of the courts, even if the hearing before this court was, in one sense, a successful hearing from the appellant's point of view. As an appeal it should never have commenced and in the circumstances it does not seem to me that the public should be required to pay any part of the costs, and in those circumstances I would award the prosecution £3,238 by way of costs.
4. MR JUSTICE McCOMBE: I entirely agree, and would only add that to deprive the prosecution of its costs of this appeal would, in my view, run counter to the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules that justice must be done in all cases. I will not endeavour to quote that rule now, but if people decide to run wholly technical defences, which in the end are not vindicated, they should not be surprised if the consequences of setting this particular hare running are that they pay the costs of the exercise. Accordingly, I agree with my Lord.
5. MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: I agree with my Lords.