Crowch, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Under Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, an unrepresented defendant who is not a practising lawyer cannot recover, as costs, the value of time spent preparing a defence or attending court. Sections 19(1) and 16(1), (6), together with regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases General Regulations 1986, distinguish recoverable costs or expenses from compensation for trouble or loss of time. The court must apply that statutory scheme and binding authority even where prosecutorial conduct appears unjust or lamentable. Any wider reform is a matter for Parliament or the Lord Chancellor.

The claimant was prosecuted for a speeding offence. The prosecution ultimately offered no evidence after seeking to adjourn the trial, and the information was dismissed. The claimant received a defendant's costs order for travelling expenses under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

He later sought approximately £1,600 under section 19(1) of the Act and regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases General Regulations 1986, including compensation for preparation time, attendance and lost working time. The District Judge held that such time could not constitute recoverable costs for an unrepresented, non-lawyer defendant. The issue for the High Court was whether that conclusion was correct.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had correctly answered the stated question in the negative.
2. Sections 19(1) and 16(1), (6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 refer to costs or expenses. They do not, unlike section 19(3), authorise compensation for trouble or loss of time. Regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases General Regulations 1986 does not enlarge that statutory power.
3. The distinction drawn in R v Bedlington Magistrates' Court ex parte Wilkinson [1999] 164 JP 156, following earlier authority, was applicable. An unrepresented defendant who is not a solicitor or barrister cannot recover the value of time spent preparing the case or attending court as costs incurred.
4. The court considered that the prosecution’s conduct appeared questionable and possibly lamentable. That did not permit the court to disregard the statutory wording or binding authority. The remedy’s limits had stood for many years, and any perceived injustice or reform was for Parliament or the Lord Chancellor.
5. The claim was dismissed. No further order was made.

• Magistrates' Court, Nottingham: The District Judge refused the claimant’s application for costs under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, holding that an unrepresented non-lawyer could not recover preparation and attendance time.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The District Judge’s conclusion was upheld.