Edgar v Walsall Magistrates' Court

A defendant’s costs order from central funds covers expenses properly incurred in the proceedings. It does not ordinarily compensate a litigant in person for personal time spent researching, preparing or presenting a defence. A defendant cannot convert that personal work into expert-witness expenditure without employing a recognised expert and incurring the relevant expense. A claimed reference-book purchase must also be shown to have been reasonably and properly incurred. Where the relevant material could reasonably have been photocopied, and the circumstances do not establish that the purchase was for the proceedings, the cost may be refused.

The claimant was acquitted of speeding before Walsall Magistrates’ Court and received a defendant’s costs order payable from central funds. He claimed payment for substantial time spent preparing his defence, technical research and reports, travel and other disbursements. He also claimed the cost of purchasing Wilkinson on Road Traffic.

The determining officer allowed or indicated willingness to allow certain expenses but rejected the claim for personal preparation time and questioned the book purchase, relying on section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986. The claimant sought judicial review of that determination. The central issues were whether his personal preparation time was an expense properly incurred and whether the book purchase was reasonably recoverable.

1. Application refused. The claimant was not entitled to recover the bulk of his claim for time spent preparing his defence.
2. Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and regulation 7 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 limit recovery to work actually and reasonably done, disbursements actually and reasonably incurred, and expenses properly incurred in the proceedings.
3. The court applied Bedlington Magistrates’ Court ex parte Wilkinson (21 October 1999, reference CO/900/99). A litigant in person in criminal proceedings cannot ordinarily claim for the hours personally expended in labouring to defeat the prosecution. Expenses incurred in employing a graphics contractor could be recoverable as a disbursement, but that principle did not assist this claimant.
4. The claimant’s assertion that he was an expert witness did not alter the result. He had not employed a recognised expert or incurred the cost of expert evidence. His own preparation of technical material remained personal preparation time. The fact that similar recovery may be possible in civil proceedings was irrelevant.
5. The cost of Wilkinson on Road Traffic was also not properly incurred. The claimant had omitted it from his original bill, had bought it about five and a half months before the case, and could have photocopied the relevant passages even if the book was unavailable for loan. The judicial review application was therefore refused.

High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Collins J on 13 March 2007, following earlier permission to commence proceedings by Underhill J. The Divisional Court refused the application.