Gibson, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency

When imposing prosecution costs, the court must consider what the defendant can reasonably afford, having regard to the defendant’s means and other financial orders. The amount must also reflect costs actually and reasonably incurred by the prosecutor.

There is no universal rule that costs must be payable within 12 months. The relevant period is the period that is reasonable in the circumstances. A defendant must provide relevant financial information, and the court may draw reasonable inferences where disclosure is inadequate. On a case-stated appeal, the High Court does not rehear the assessment; intervention requires an error of law, including irrationality.

The claimant and a co-appellant pleaded guilty before Justices in Hertfordshire to offences involving the unlawful deposit of waste. The Justices imposed community orders, compensation orders and prosecution-costs orders of £4,000 against each appellant.

The appeal was brought by way of case stated because there was no right of appeal to the Crown Court against the costs orders. The claimant argued that costs should generally be payable within 12 months, that the Justices had not properly assessed the defendants’ means, and that the prosecutor’s schedule was excessive. The central issues were the proper period for payment, the assessment of means, and the scope of review on a case-stated appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s jurisdiction on a case stated was confined to an error of law. In this context, intervention would ordinarily require the Justices’ decision on the amount payable to have been irrational.
2. There was no general requirement that a costs order be payable within 12 months. The governing question was whether the defendant could pay the amount, having regard to his means and any other financial order, and whether it was reasonable to order payment within the period selected. A period of up to about three years might be appropriate, although a shorter period could often be suitable.
3. The Justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and circumstances. They could take account of discretionary expenditure, the defendant’s business activities, previous convictions and the absence of supporting financial evidence. The claimant’s asserted bankruptcy did not, by itself, prevent a costs order.
4. The defendant had the responsibility of disclosing financial information relevant to the court’s assessment, but a court proposing a financial order had to give a fair opportunity to provide information and make submissions. No procedural unfairness arose on the facts.
5. The costs order could not exceed the prosecutor’s costs actually and reasonably incurred. The Justices had considered the costs schedule, heard submissions and reduced the sum claimed. It was not open to the claimant to reargue that assessment before the High Court.
6. The appeal was dismissed. On the appeal costs application, £1,000 was ordered against Mr Gibson, with enforcement left to the magistrates; no costs were ordered against Mr Jobson.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed.
• Hertfordshire Justices sitting at St Albans: imposed community orders, compensation orders and prosecution-costs orders of £4,000 against each appellant.