Chief Constable of Sussex, R (on the application of) v Chichester Crown Court & Anor

On an appeal against revocation of a firearms or shotgun certificate, costs do not ordinarily follow the event. The Crown Court must consider the police authority’s public duty and may order costs against the Chief Constable only where the decision or conduct was in bad faith, improperly motivated, wholly unreasonable, misconceived or otherwise amounted to misconduct. A contested costs application should be supported by brief reasons explaining why that threshold is satisfied. The absence of reasons may justify quashing, but relief may be refused where the decision was plainly one which could not reasonably have been reached differently. Once permission for judicial review has been granted, delay is governed by section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, not by reconsideration of the ordinary promptness requirement.

The Chief Constable revoked Paul Stoner’s firearms and shotgun certificates under sections 30A and 30C of the Firearms Act 1968. The statutory appeal to Chichester Crown Court succeeded. Although the Crown Court judge indicated that the Chief Constable was not criticised for his conduct, the court ordered him to pay Mr Stoner’s costs without giving reasons.

The Crown Court refused the Chief Constable’s application to state a case. Permission was then granted for judicial review of that refusal, and the claim was amended to challenge the costs order directly. The central issues were whether the amendment should be permitted, whether delay barred relief under section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and whether the costs order was lawful.

1. Amendment and delay. The amendment to challenge the costs order directly was permitted. It caused no injustice because it offered a speedier and narrower review. Under Supreme Court Act 1981, section 31(6), once permission for judicial review has been granted, the court cannot reopen the question whether permission was timely. Delay may still justify refusing relief only if it is likely to cause substantial hardship, substantial prejudice to rights, or detriment to good administration. None was established here.
2. Costs principles. The authorities establish that costs do not automatically follow the event in proceedings concerning the police performance of a public licensing or protective function. Where the police act in good faith, responsibly and on relevant information, an adverse costs order should not be made merely because the applicant succeeds. Such an order requires conduct that is improperly motivated, wholly or totally unreasonable, misconceived, or otherwise amounts to misconduct.
3. Reasons. A court deciding a contested costs application should give at least brief reasons identifying why the applicable threshold has been met. A bare statement that costs are awarded in the exercise of discretion is insufficient.
4. Application. The Chief Constable had credible information capable of reasonably supporting revocation. The later evidence relied on by Mr Stoner was not available to the Chief Constable and did not make it unreasonable to contest the appeal. The Chief Constable’s conduct could not conceivably be characterised as unreasonable or misconduct. Although the Crown Court gave no reasons, remittal would have been pointless because the decision could not reasonably have been different.
5. The costs order was quashed and set aside. The Chief Constable succeeded in the judicial review application. No costs order was sought by him.

The judgment describes a statutory appeal to Chichester Crown Court against revocation of the certificates. The Crown Court allowed the appeal and ordered the Chief Constable to pay £2,160.81 in costs. Its refusal to state a case was then challenged by judicial review before the Administrative Court, and the claim was amended to challenge the costs order directly.