Hughes, R (On the Application Of) v Macclesfield Magistrates Court

Where a conviction is quashed because the defendant was wrongly denied an adjournment to obtain expert evidence, a retrial will generally remain appropriate where the evidence can still be called, memories have not materially faded and the public interest remains substantial. Personal hardship, reputational damage, employment loss and financial difficulty do not necessarily make a retrial oppressive. Costs remain discretionary. An interested party which effectively contests the claim may be ordered to pay costs, but the award may be reduced to reflect unsuccessful issues and inadequately justified expenditure.

The claimant’s conviction and sentence had been quashed because the Magistrates’ Court refused an adjournment sought to enable expert evidence to be obtained. The High Court then considered whether the matter should be remitted for a retrial and, if so, how the costs of the judicial review should be dealt with.

The claimant relied on imprisonment, dismissal after long service, public vilification, personal distress, family strain and financial deterioration. The Crown Prosecution Service opposed the claim for a no-retrial order and disputed both liability for, and the amount of, costs.

1. Retrial. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Macclesfield Magistrates’ Court for a retrial before a differently constituted bench, if the prosecution decided to proceed.
2. The refusal of an adjournment had caused the conviction and sentence to be quashed, but the defect did not make a retrial inappropriate. The case did not depend on failing memories, only one year had elapsed since the offence, and the claimant would be able to adduce the expert evidence previously excluded.
3. The public interest arising from the level of alcohol involved and the possible period of disqualification outweighed the claimant’s personal circumstances. The hardship relied upon, although serious and deserving of sympathy, did not make a retrial oppressive.
4. Costs. The claimant was entitled to costs despite the CPS being formally an interested party. In the circumstances, the CPS had effectively acted as the defendant at the hearing because it opposed the claim; without that opposition, the matter could have been dealt with more simply and quickly.
5. The costs were reduced to reflect the unsuccessful application to prevent remittal. That issue was assessed at 20 per cent of the total. The court then made a broad assessment of the remaining claim, particularly because 63 hours of document preparation at £180 per hour had not been adequately explained, and awarded £9,000 plus VAT.

The judgment records that the claimant’s conviction and sentence had already been quashed following judicial review of the Magistrates’ Court’s refusal to grant an adjournment. No citation for that earlier decision is stated.