London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Zannat Ara Aziz

Section 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 excludes recovery from central funds of an accused’s legal costs unless a specified condition applies. The condition covering legal costs incurred in proceedings in a magistrates’ court does not extend to legal costs incurred in the High Court on a case stated appeal. The position is unaffected by whether the defendant was convicted or acquitted in the magistrates’ court. Where no jurisdiction exists to order payment of those costs, there is no basis for convening a Divisional Court merely to consider the application.

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham unsuccessfully prosecuted Zannat Ara Aziz in the magistrates’ court for breach of an enforcement notice. Aziz then successfully resisted the Borough’s case stated appeal in the Administrative Court. The magistrates’ court had already made a freestanding defendant’s costs order for the costs incurred there.

Aziz applied for her High Court legal costs from central funds under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The central issue was whether section 16A permitted recovery of legal costs incurred in the High Court, and whether the matter should be referred to a Divisional Court.

1. Application dismissed. The court had no jurisdiction to order payment from central funds of Aziz’s legal costs incurred in successfully resisting the case stated appeal.
2. Section 16A(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 plainly excludes an amount in respect of the accused’s legal costs from a defendant’s costs order, subject to the statutory conditions.
3. Condition A does not apply because section 16(5)(a), concerning proceedings determined before a Divisional Court, is not among the provisions listed in section 16A(3). Condition B applies only to legal costs incurred in proceedings in a court below, including magistrates’ court proceedings. It does not cover costs incurred in the High Court.
4. The statutory scheme therefore does not depend on whether the defendant was convicted or acquitted in the magistrates’ court. The conclusion accords with Lord Howard of Lympne v DPP [2018] EWHC 100 (Admin) and Bahbahani v Ealing Magistrates’ Court [2019] EWHC 1385 (Admin); legal costs from central funds are unavailable for a successful case stated appeal in the Administrative Court.
5. Although section 16(5)(a) refers to a Divisional Court, referral to a Divisional Court would be appropriate only where jurisdiction existed. Since the application concerned High Court legal costs excluded by section 16A, it was inappropriate to convene one.

1. Magistrates’ Court: the prosecution for breach of an enforcement notice failed, and the court made a defendant’s costs order covering costs incurred there.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): the Borough’s case stated appeal was unsuccessful. The principal judgment is identified as London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Zannat Ara Aziz [2024] EWHC 1212 (Admin).
3. High Court (Administrative Court): the present costs application was dismissed.