Dickinson, R. v

A Crown Court may use a prosecution authority’s published costs scale as a fair and reasonable guide to the costs actually incurred, provided that the scale is soundly based and the court remains alert to case-specific features which may make it unreliable.

On an appeal against a Crown Court costs order, intervention is confined to an order that is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The relationship between a fine and costs is not determined by arithmetic alone. The total liability must be just and reasonable, reflect costs actually and reasonably incurred, and not impose an undue financial burden on the defendant.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to possessing cocaine, a class A drug. He was fined £200 and ordered to pay £1,200 prosecution costs at £20 per week.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the costs order was disproportionate to the prosecution’s actual costs and to the fine, and was beyond his means. The principal issues were whether the sentencing judge could rely on the CPS scale of costs and whether the resulting order was just and reasonable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the appellate jurisdiction over a Crown Court costs order is limited to deciding whether the order was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The appellant had shown neither.

2. Under section 18(1)(c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, a costs order must be just and reasonable. The CPS scale was produced as a guide to average costs. Its methodology was soundly based on the time reasonably expected for relevant work and the cost of the staff who would ordinarily undertake it. Periodic comparison with CPS actual expenditure made the scale consistent, reliable and transparent.

3. A judge may therefore rely on such a scale as a fair and reasonable guide to actual prosecution costs. The judge and prosecutor must nevertheless consider whether particular features of an individual case make the scale an unreliable guide. None did so here. The judge selected the lowest scale figure for a committal for trial.

4. The £1,200 costs order was not grossly disproportionate to the £200 fine merely because it was six times the fine. A crude arithmetical comparison was inappropriate. The appellant had elected Crown Court trial despite an apparently overwhelming case and later pleaded guilty at the first opportunity after committal.

5. The total sum, payable at £20 per week over a little less than 18 months, would cause financial strain but was not shown to be unduly or unfairly onerous. The court also made no order for the costs of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Dickinson, [2010] EWCA Crim 2143, the court dismissed the appeal against the £1,200 Crown Court costs order and made no order for appeal costs.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 18 November 2009, following a guilty plea to possession of cocaine, the appellant was fined £200 and ordered to pay £1,200 prosecution costs at £20 per week.
• Barnsley Magistrates’ Court: The court had jurisdiction and was prepared to try the offence summarily, but the appellant elected trial on indictment and was committed to the Crown Court.