Orton v Truro Crown Court & Ors

Costs in civil forfeiture proceedings are discretionary and must be awarded according to what is just and reasonable. Where an applicant successfully resists forfeiture in both the magistrates’ court and on appeal to the Crown Court, costs should ordinarily follow success unless cogent reasons justify a different order. The burden remains on the enforcement authority to establish the forfeiture claim; the successful respondent is not required to rebut that claim. The Crown Court’s broad appellate power includes power to review the magistrates’ court’s costs decision.

The claimant successfully resisted a police application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for forfeiture of cash. The West Cornwall Magistrates’ Court dismissed the forfeiture application but refused the claimant’s costs. The Crown Court dismissed the police appeal but likewise refused costs. The claimant sought judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision, with the issue also extending to the costs order in the magistrates’ court. The central questions were whether the costs decisions were lawful and whether the Crown Court could review the magistrates’ court’s costs decision.

1. The claim for judicial review succeeded. The Crown Court’s refusal to award costs was quashed.
2. The costs jurisdiction in these proceedings was civil. Under section 64 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the magistrates’ court had a discretionary power to order costs where it was just and reasonable to do so. The Crown Court was likewise required to exercise its discretion according to what was just and reasonable.
3. The Crown Court’s stated reason—that the claimant had done little or nothing to rebut the police case—was legally flawed. The claimant was not required to rebut the case; the police bore the burden of establishing that the cash should be forfeited. The police had failed to establish forfeiture in both courts, and there was no finding of conduct which otherwise disentitled the claimant to costs.
4. Although the point had not been argued, the Crown Court’s power under section 299 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was sufficiently wide to include review of the magistrates’ court’s costs decision on the police appeal. Having succeeded in both courts, the claimant should ordinarily receive his costs unless cogent reasons were advanced to the contrary.
5. The matter was remitted to the Crown Court. If the costs could not be agreed, the Crown Court was directed to determine the claimant’s entitlement to costs in both courts in accordance with the judgment. The claimant was awarded £548 costs of the judicial review proceedings against the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

1. West Cornwall Magistrates’ Court dismissed the police forfeiture application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 but refused the claimant’s costs.
2. Truro Crown Court dismissed the police appeal but refused the claimant’s costs.
3. High Court (Administrative Court) quashed the Crown Court’s costs decision, remitted the costs issue concerning both courts, and awarded the claimant £548 costs of the judicial review.