The Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police v MT

Where a public authority exercises a regulatory function, costs do not ordinarily follow the event when proceedings are withdrawn or dismissed. The default position is that there should be no order for costs. That position may be displaced where the authority acted dishonestly, unreasonably or abusively, or where refusal of costs would cause substantial hardship or there is another compelling reason. The court must assess the authority’s conduct in its public regulatory context, rather than applying the usual civil rule that a discontinuing party pays the other side’s costs. A police chief was entitled to withdraw a Sexual Offences Prevention Order application after the respondent left the police area, particularly because the application had initially been supported by sound evidence.

The Chief Constable appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Coventry and Warwickshire Magistrates’ Court ordering him to pay £3,189.60 in costs after a Sexual Offences Prevention Order application concerning MT was withdrawn. The application had been made under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The magistrates considered section 52 of the Courts Act 1971 and section 64 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. They concluded that it was just and reasonable to award MT his costs because he had incurred them defending an application which was later withdrawn. The central issue was whether the magistrates had lawfully exercised their discretion in a regulatory proceeding.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ costs determination was quashed and replaced with an order that there be no order for costs. Question 1 in the case stated was answered “No”; Question 2 did not arise.
2. The application was a civil proceeding brought by a chief of police while exercising a regulatory function associated with, but not forming part of, the criminal justice system. The applicable costs power was section 52 of the Courts Act 1971, not the general costs provisions of the CPR.
3. The principles in Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth (2000) 164 JP 485 and R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2010] EWCA Civ 40 applied. The usual order in regulatory proceedings was no order for costs. A different order required justification arising from the authority’s conduct or the particular circumstances, such as substantial hardship, dishonesty or unreasonableness.
4. The magistrates had treated the matter as an ordinary civil action in which costs followed the event. That was an error. Commencing, continuing or withdrawing a regulatory application was not, without more, a compelling reason to order costs against the authority.
5. The application had a sound evidential basis when made. It was also reasonably open to the Chief Constable to withdraw it after MT left the police area, having regard to section 104(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. There was no evidence of dishonesty, abuse, unreasonableness or substantial hardship sufficient to displace the default position.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of case stated, the magistrates’ costs order was quashed and replaced with no order for costs.