Major & Ors v Driver And Vehicle Standards Agency

When ordering a convicted defendant to pay prosecution costs, the court must consider the defendant’s means and ability to pay within a reasonable time. The order must also avoid being grossly disproportionate to the fine, although no arithmetical relationship is required. The fine should ordinarily be determined first, with costs then assessed in light of the defendant’s means and the overall financial burden. Where a Case Stated does not disclose sufficient findings about means, the High Court is confined to the stated facts. A plainly disproportionate costs order may be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Five drivers convicted on guilty pleas to tachograph offences challenged prosecution-costs orders made by Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court. The costs had been apportioned across the offences investigated by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The orders substantially exceeded the fines imposed.

The challenges proceeded by Cases Stated because the ordinary appeal to the Crown Court was excluded by Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The issues were whether the costs exceeded the appellants’ means, whether they were grossly disproportionate to the fines, and whether the High Court could determine those issues on the facts stated.

1. The court had jurisdiction to entertain the challenges by Case Stated. Although judicial review might sometimes be preferable where general fairness is in issue, the appellants were entitled to use the Case Stated procedure.

2. On a Case Stated, the High Court is restricted to the information contained in the stated case. The stated cases recorded only that each appellant could pay the costs within a reasonable time. They contained no findings explaining whether the Magistrates accepted, qualified or rejected the statements of means. There was therefore no basis for concluding that the Magistrates had erred in applying the principles concerning means.

3. Under section 18(1) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985, a costs order must be just and reasonable. The order must not exceed the sum which, having regard to the defendant’s means and other financial orders, the defendant can reasonably pay. Costs should not ordinarily be grossly disproportionate to the fine. No fixed arithmetical relationship is required.

4. The apportionment of the DVSA’s reasonable investigation and solicitor’s costs by reference to the number of offences was sensible in the circumstances. The resulting orders were nevertheless grossly disproportionate for the first three appellants, whose costs were several times their fines. The same approach could not be regarded as principled for the remaining two appellants, because the Magistrates had failed to address proportionality consistently.

5. All five costs orders were quashed and set aside. The issue of costs was remitted to the Magistrates for determination in accordance with the judgment, including consideration of means and the reasonableness and proportionality of the sums ordered.

First-instance decision on Cases Stated by the Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court. The High Court quashed and set aside the Magistrates’ costs orders and remitted the issue for reconsideration.