Nedic v South Staffordshire District Council

Prosecution costs awarded by magistrates should compensate the prosecutor, not punish the defendant. They must reflect costs actually and reasonably incurred and must not ordinarily be grossly disproportionate to the fine, even where the defendant has means to pay. Any exceptional departure from proportionality should be explained and is likely to be rare. Where the defendant materially challenges an apparently excessive costs claim, the prosecution should provide evidence capable of being tested. Work undertaken in anticipation of legal argument which was neither identified nor advanced is not ordinarily recoverable. The appellate court may substitute an appropriate costs figure where remittal would cause further expense and justice can be done summarily.

The appellant pleaded guilty to ten breaches of conditions attached to a caravan-site licence. Four allegations were not pursued. The justices imposed fines totalling £1,090 and ordered the appellant to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs.

The appellant stated a case challenging the amount of costs. He argued that the claimed hours were unsupported and unreasonable, that the costs were disproportionate to the fine, and that the justices should have tested the Council’s evidence. The central issues were whether the justices had erred in law and whether the costs order should be remitted or replaced.

1. Error of law and disposition. The justices erred in law. The £20,000 costs order was unreasonable and could not stand. The court substituted a costs order of £4,500.
2. Reasonable costs. A prosecutor may recover costs actually and reasonably incurred. The claim must be assessed by reference to the work reasonably required for the prosecution. This was a straightforward factual case, and the claimed total of approximately 480 hours was plainly excessive on the material before the justices. Costs incurred preparing legal argument which had not been identified or advanced were not properly recoverable.
3. Testing disputed claims. The appellant had challenged both the hours claimed and their connection with the prosecution. Although he had not expressly sought an adjournment or specifically demanded cross-examination, the justices should not have accepted figures which appeared exceptionally high without allowing the evidential basis of the claim to be tested. The burden of establishing the costs lay with the prosecution.
4. Proportionality. The authorities, including Whalley 56 Cr App R 304, Firmston 6 Cr App R (S) 189, Jones (1988) 10 Cr App R (S) 95 and R v Northallerton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Dove (1999) 163 JP 657, establish that costs should not ordinarily be grossly disproportionate to the fine. The defendant’s means are relevant, but a person of means is not thereby exposed to disproportionate costs. An exception may exist, but the court should explain it and such cases should be rare.
5. Substitution rather than remittal. The court fixed the costs itself because remittal would generate further hearings and expense, while a fair figure could be identified on the available material. The substituted sum was approximately two and a half times the fine.

• Justices for Central and South West Staffordshire: imposed fines totalling £1,090 and ordered £20,000 in prosecution costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on a case stated, held that the justices had erred in law and substituted a costs order of £4,500.