Bright v Vale of Glamorgan Magistrates' Court

Costs ordered against an unsuccessful private prosecutor may fall within Part II of Schedule 9 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970, rather than the provisions concerning costs against an accused or convicted person. Where section 41(2) applies, the sum is enforceable as money recoverable summarily as a civil debt. It is not enforceable through the procedure applicable to a fine. A committal order made by magistrates using the wrong enforcement route may therefore be unlawful for want of jurisdiction. The court granted permission for judicial review because that jurisdictional issue was properly arguable.

The claimant had been ordered by Cardiff Crown Court to pay £1,777.65 in costs after an unsuccessful private prosecution appeal. The sum was not paid, and the Vale of Glamorgan Magistrates’ Court made a suspended committal order requiring payment by instalments.

The claimant alleged bias and procedural unfairness. The Divisional Court rejected those complaints as wholly without substance. It nevertheless considered whether the magistrates had used the correct statutory enforcement procedure. The central issue was whether the Crown Court costs order was enforceable as a fine under section 41(1), or only as a civil debt under section 41(2).

1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the statutory enforcement issue, and on that issue alone.

2. Section 41(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 applies to cases specified in Part I of Schedule 9, including orders for costs made against an accused or convicted person. Such sums are treated for collection and enforcement purposes as if adjudged payable on a magistrates’ court conviction.

3. The costs order against the claimant was made in his capacity as the unsuccessful prosecutor, not as a person convicted or accused of an offence. The potentially relevant provisions therefore appeared to be in Part II of Schedule 9. Paragraph 13 concerned magistrates’ court costs payable by a prosecutor, while paragraph 16 appeared to concern Crown Court costs orders outside Part I.

4. If the Crown Court order fell within paragraph 16, section 41(2) applied. Under that provision, the sum was enforceable as money recoverable summarily as a civil debt. It was not enforceable by treating the order as a fine.

5. The magistrates’ court appeared to have proceeded on the basis that section 41(1) applied and made a suspended committal order. It was therefore arguable that the court had no jurisdiction to adopt that procedure or make the committal order. The substantive judicial review, if pursued, would require legal representation or assistance from an advocate to the court.

The claimant renewed his application for permission to apply for judicial review of the magistrates’ committal order. The Divisional Court granted permission on the statutory jurisdiction issue only.