Williams & Sons (Wholesale) Ltd. v Hereford Magistrates' Court

A defendant’s costs order should normally be made unless positive and narrowly defined reasons justify refusal. Conduct is relevant only where it caused suspicion or misled the prosecution into believing that its case was stronger than it was. Where a prosecution fails because essential evidence was not retained and analysed, unrelated procedural breaches, conduct, or alleged inaccuracies cannot justify withholding costs. Proceedings stayed as an abuse of process must be treated for costs purposes on the basis that the defendant is not guilty. The absence of a trial or verdict is not a legitimate reason to refuse costs.

The claimant operated a slaughterhouse and was prosecuted under the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, as amended, and the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. The prosecution concerned material allegedly left in a spinal channel.

The magistrates’ court stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process because the material had not been retained for laboratory analysis. It nevertheless refused the claimant’s application for a defendant’s costs order, relying on its conduct, an internal procedure breach, alleged inaccuracies, and the absence of a verdict. The issue before the Divisional Court was whether those matters could lawfully justify refusing costs.

1. Appeal allowed. The refusal of a defendant’s costs order was discharged, and an order for the claimant’s costs was made. The costs of the proceedings before the Divisional Court were also ordered to be taxed.
2. Under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the applicable Practice Direction, a defendant’s costs order should normally be made unless positive reasons justify refusal. The exception is narrowly drawn in order to preserve the presumption of innocence recognised by the common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. The magistrates’ court had found that laboratory analysis was essential to determine whether the retained material was spinal cord. The prosecution was therefore bound to fail because the material had not been retained and submitted for analysis. The claimant’s conduct, the failure to follow its internal procedure, and alleged inaccuracies in interview had no causal connection with that failure and were irrelevant to whether the prosecution should have been pursued.
4. It was an error to treat a stay for abuse of process as a different category from an acquittal for costs purposes. The claimant had to be treated as not guilty. The absence of a trial or verdict could not influence the costs decision.
5. Although lies may sometimes strengthen the prosecution’s belief that its case is sound, that principle did not apply here. The evidential defect which made the prosecution unsustainable was independent of the matters relied upon by the magistrates’ court.

• Hereford Magistrates’ Court: Proceedings were stayed as an abuse of process, but the claimant’s application for a defendant’s costs order was refused.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed. The costs order was discharged and a defendant’s costs order was made in favour of the claimant.