Hunter v Newcastle Crown Court

A Crown Court decision on whether to order payment of a defendant’s costs from central funds is an integral part of the trial process. It therefore relates to a trial on indictment and falls within the statutory exclusion from appeal by case stated and judicial review. The principle applies where the prosecution offers no evidence and the defendant is directed to be acquitted, as well as after a conventional trial or guilty plea. The High Court cannot review the Crown Court’s assessment of the defendant’s conduct or the relative responsibility of the prosecution and defence in making the costs decision.

The claimant was tried in the Crown Court on allegations of fraudulent trading and financial services offences. The prosecution offered no evidence and the Crown Court entered not-guilty verdicts. The claimant then applied under section 16(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for his defence costs to be paid from central funds. The application was refused because the judge found that the claimant had brought suspicion on himself and had misled the police and prosecution about the strength of the case.

The claimant appealed by case stated. The principal issue was whether the refusal of a defendant’s costs order was a decision relating to a trial on indictment, so that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 1981.

1. The appeal could not proceed. Under sections 28(3) and 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court has no jurisdiction by case stated or judicial review over a Crown Court judgment or decision relating to a trial on indictment.
2. The House of Lords decisions in In Re Smalley [1985] AC 622 and Re Sampson [1987] 1 WLR 194 established that costs decisions made at the conclusion of a trial are integral to the trial process. The relevant discretion requires consideration of the nature and conduct of the prosecution and defence and the outcome of the trial.
3. The same reasoning applies where the prosecution offers no evidence and the judge enters a verdict of not guilty. A directed acquittal under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 has the same effect as an acquittal following a jury trial. The judge remains best placed to assess the case and the conduct of the parties.
4. R v Wood Green Crown Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] 1 WLR 723 could not be relied upon. Its reasoning depended on authorities later overruled by Re Ashton [1994] 1 AC 9, and the decision was regarded as wrongly decided in Reg v Harrow Crown Court ex parte Perkins 162 JP 527. The court adopted that analysis and held that both the decision and reasoning in Wood Green Crown Court were entirely undermined.
5. The court therefore had no jurisdiction to examine the Crown Court’s factual findings or the merits of its costs decision. The first question in the case stated was answered accordingly; the second question did not arise.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant appealed by case stated against the Newcastle Crown Court’s refusal to order payment of his defence costs from central funds. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under [2013] EWHC 191 (Admin).