Macatonia, R. v

A criminal appellate court will interfere with a costs order only where it is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. A prosecutor may recover only costs actually and reasonably incurred, and the order must be proportionate to the proceedings. The appellate court will not ordinarily revisit detailed costs criticisms by reference to fuller material produced after the hearing below, where the judge had considered the available arguments and reached a just overall assessment. A mathematical adjustment is nevertheless required where the order includes costs not actually incurred at the claimed rates.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to offences involving counterfeit trainers. Confiscation proceedings followed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

At Croydon Crown Court, Recorder King accepted an agreed benefit figure of £25,000 and made a confiscation order for that sum. He then ordered the appellant to pay £12,810 prosecution costs, having deducted the claimed £2,500 financial-investigation cost.

The appellant appealed against the costs order. He contended that 90 hours of legal-services work was unreasonable and that the costs were disproportionate. The central issue was whether the Recorder's order was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The costs order was reduced from £12,810 to £12,390 because £420 had been claimed at rates not applicable to work undertaken in 2007 and 2008. To that extent, the costs had not been actually incurred at the rate claimed.

2. The court applied the costs principles stated in R v Northallerton Magistrates' Court ex parte Christopher John Dove [1999] EWHC (Admin) 499. Those principles apply to Crown Court costs orders as well as to magistrates' court orders. Recoverable costs must have been actually and reasonably incurred, and proportionality remains relevant.

3. An appeal against a costs order, pursued as part of a sentence appeal, is not an occasion for detailed reassessment. The appellate question is whether the order was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

4. The Recorder had considered the substantial difference between the initial benefit estimate and the agreed figure, and had made a £2,500 deduction. On the material available to him, he was entitled to reach a just overall assessment. The later, more detailed schedule did not establish an error of principle or manifest excess in the remaining costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal only to correct a £420 overclaim in the costs calculation; otherwise upheld the costs order.
• Croydon Crown Court: On 17 June 2009, Recorder King made a confiscation order of £25,000 and ordered prosecution costs of £12,810.