RAI v Guildford Magistrates Court & Anor

On an appeal by case stated, the High Court may review whether a magistrates’ decision was wrong in law or irrational, but does not rehear the merits.

A compensation order must be based on clear findings about the offender’s means. The court must determine a realistic repayment amount, instalments and repayment period. Those decisions cannot be delegated to a fines officer. Costs must be just and reasonable and must have regard to compensation, the surcharge and the offender’s means. A collection order must specify either a payment period or instalments. The Sentencing Council’s usual repayment guidance should generally be followed, save perhaps in wholly exceptional cases.

The applicant appealed by case stated against orders made by Guildford Magistrates Court following his guilty plea to fraud involving housing benefit and council tax reduction. The magistrates imposed a suspended sentence, compensation of £22,000, prosecution costs of £6,067.88, a nil surcharge and a collection order requiring payment within 28 days, while directing the applicant to arrange instalments with the fines office.

The stated questions concerned the applicant’s means, the reasonableness of the costs order, the lawfulness of the collection order and the interaction between prosecution costs and the statutory surcharge. The magistrates conceded that the nil surcharge had been imposed in error.

1. Scope of the appeal. An appeal by case stated is confined to whether the magistrates’ decision was wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction. Public law principles apply, including a reasonableness standard when the magistrates evaluate evidence (see [2024] EWHC 1763 (Admin)).
2. Surcharge and costs. Under section 42 of the Sentencing Act 2020, a surcharge is mandatory unless the offender lacks sufficient means to pay both the surcharge and an appropriate compensation order. The nil surcharge therefore contradicted the subsequent explanation that the applicant could pay compensation and costs. Under section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, costs must be just and reasonable and must not exceed the sum the defendant can pay, having regard to means and other financial orders. The applicable priority is compensation, surcharge, then costs.
3. Compensation and payment terms. Section 135 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required the magistrates to assess the applicant’s means and decide whether the proposed order was appropriate. That required consideration of whether repayment would be oppressive or an undue burden, whether repayment was realistic within a reasonable period, and whether the order accorded with the offence and offender. The principles in R v Margaret York were relevant. A court must specify the instalments and repayment period; it cannot leave those matters to the fines officer.
4. The collection order’s reference to payment within 28 days was irrational on the evidence of the applicant’s disposable income. Although Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003 permits payment within a specified period or by specified instalments, the magistrates failed to specify instalments or a repayment period.
5. The usual Sentencing Council guidance is payment within 12 months, with up to three years in exceptional circumstances. A period of up to three years might be justified here, but only by reference to disposable income before payment of other debts.
6. The court quashed the orders for compensation, costs and a nil surcharge. Redetermination of the appropriate financial orders was directed before a differently constituted bench.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division, Divisional Court): appeal by case stated allowed. The orders made by Guildford Magistrates Court on 2 August 2023 were quashed and the financial orders remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted bench.