Jones, R (on the application of) v Guildford Crown Court

A criminal court considering costs against an impecunious defendant must have regard to whether the defendant has the means and ability to pay, together with other relevant principles governing costs orders. Where the court’s reasons are available, an application for judicial review may be a more convenient route than requiring the Crown Court to state a case. The matter may be remitted to the Crown Court for reconsideration if the impugned costs order is quashed.

The Divisional Court had previously given judgment in the claimant’s judicial review proceedings under [2003] EWHC 2527 (Admin). This further judgment concerned only the costs order made by the Crown Court. The Crown Court had ordered the claimant to pay £500 towards the costs of her appeal, in addition to a fine and costs imposed by the magistrates’ court. The claimant was destitute, suffered from psychiatric problems and received no state benefits.

The court had to decide the appropriate procedural route and whether permission should be granted to challenge the Crown Court’s costs order.

1. The court’s jurisdiction to order an unsuccessful appellant to pay costs to the prosecutor derived from section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which empowered the court to make such order as to costs as it considered just and reasonable.

2. When deciding whether to make a costs order against an impecunious defendant, the Crown Court should take account of the relevant principles identified in the authorities and the Practice Direction (Crime: Costs), including the requirement that an order should be made only where the court is satisfied that the offender or appellant has the means and ability to pay. The Divisional Court did not consider those principles in detail at this stage, but held that they raised issues fit for argument.

3. Although the claimant had applied for an order requiring the Crown Court to state a case, the transcript of the Crown Court’s reasons was now available. In those circumstances, it would be more convenient to grant permission to apply for judicial review, enabling the papers and the judgments to be served on the Crown Court.

4. Judge Addison could, if he considered it appropriate, quash the earlier costs order and remit the costs issue for reconsideration, thereby avoiding unnecessary further expense in the Divisional Court.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court had previously given judgment in the same proceedings under [2003] EWHC 2527 (Admin). In this judgment it dealt only with the Crown Court’s costs order and granted permission to apply for judicial review.