The Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary, R (on the application of) v Oldring

Under rule 12(2) of the Crown Court Rules 1982, an adverse costs order against a chief constable in firearms-certification proceedings requires more than the other party’s success. Relevant grounds include bad faith, malice, improper motive, a case without foundation, or irrationality in the Wednesbury sense. A higher degree of unreasonableness is unnecessary.

The reasonableness of a revocation must be assessed substantially by reference to the information available when the decision was made. An acquittal on related criminal charges is not conclusive. The chief constable applies a public-safety licensing test on the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof.

The Chief Constable appealed by case stated against an order of the Crown Court at Winchester requiring him to pay the defendant’s costs on an appeal against the revocation of firearms and shotgun certificates.

The certificates had been revoked after the defendant shot a neighbour’s cat and was subsequently charged with criminal offences. He was later acquitted in the Magistrates’ Court, and succeeded before the Crown Court. The central question was whether the Crown Court had been right to order the chief constable to pay the defendant’s costs under rule 12(2) of the Crown Court Rules 1982.

1. The appeal was allowed and the Crown Court costs order was quashed. In the absence of bad faith, malice, improper motive or a case without foundation, an adverse costs order against a chief constable may be justified where the licensing decision was irrational or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. It is unnecessary to impose an additional requirement that the conduct be totally or utterly unreasonable.

2. The Crown Court had to assess the chief constable’s decision essentially as at the time it was made and on the material then available. The chief constable was performing a statutory licensing function concerned with public protection and was entitled, where necessary, to act promptly and robustly.

3. An acquittal in the Magistrates’ Court could not, by itself, establish that the revocation was unreasonable. The criminal court applied the criminal standard of proof, whereas the chief constable was deciding whether the certificate-holder posed a danger to public safety or the peace on the balance of probabilities. Even an acquittal preceding the revocation would not alone have compelled a decision against revocation.

4. The Crown Court had treated the later acquittal as significant without properly addressing the applicable authorities or the distinct statutory test. Its costs order was therefore unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

5. Costs in the Crown Court were ordered on the basis that each party should bear their own costs. There was no order for costs in the Administrative Court.

• Crown Court at Winchester: allowed the defendant’s appeal against revocation and ordered the Chief Constable to pay his costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by case stated, quashed the costs order and directed that each party bear their own Crown Court costs.