Galandauer v Snaresbrook Crown Court

Where a defendant’s costs order is made out of central funds, the court must apply the statutory scheme governing the amount payable. A reduced award under section 16(7) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 requires identified circumstances making recovery of the full amount inappropriate, followed by an assessment of what is just and reasonable. If the court quantifies the full amount under section 16(9)(a), the successful defendant must agree that amount. On judicial review, the Administrative Court may substitute its own decision under CPR 54.19(3) where remittal would serve no purpose and only one lawful outcome is available.

The claimant pleaded guilty before Redbridge Magistrates’ Court to an offence under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and was disqualified from driving for six months. On appeal, Snaresbrook Crown Court reduced the disqualification to three months and made a defendant’s costs order from central funds, but quantified the costs at £150 plus VAT.

The claimant sought judicial review of the quantification. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had lawfully reduced the amount payable as a contribution towards costs and whether the Administrative Court should remit the matter or determine the amount itself.

1. The court quashed the part of the Crown Court’s order quantifying the defendant’s costs at £150 plus VAT and substituted a costs figure of £650 plus VAT.

2. Under section 16(7) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, a court may award less than the full amount of expenses properly incurred only where it is of the opinion that identified circumstances make recovery of the full amount inappropriate. It must then assess what amount is just and reasonable. The Crown Court had identified no such circumstances, and the material before it provided no rational basis for £150 plus VAT.

3. If the Crown Court intended to quantify the full amount under section 16(6), its power arose under section 16(9)(a). That provision required the claimant to agree the amount specified. He had not agreed to £150 plus VAT.

4. Under CPR 54.19(3), the Administrative Court may take the decision itself after making a quashing order where remittal would serve no purpose. This was an exceptional case because the only lawful options were to specify £650 plus VAT, the amount sought and not shown to be inappropriate, or to proceed by taxation under the relevant Regulations.

5. The court noted that the case was out of the ordinary. The suggested statutory power under section 43 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 did not apply.

The claimant sought judicial review of Snaresbrook Crown Court’s decision dated 17 October 2005 quantifying his defendant’s costs order at £150 plus VAT. The Administrative Court quashed that quantification and substituted £650 plus VAT.