R v Daniel Barry Denison

Where an applicant brings a misconceived appeal-related application and causes a public authority to incur expense and the court to hold wasted hearings, the starting point is that the applicant should pay the authority’s costs. The applicant’s decision to decline offered publicly funded representation may be relevant to that assessment. The court must nevertheless consider ability to pay. Where payment would deprive an applicant of welfare benefits needed for essential living expenses, and there is no realistic near-term prospect of work, it may be harsh and unjust to make a costs order despite the applicant’s conduct.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against a confiscation order and leave to appeal. The applications were referred to the full court. The hearing was adjourned when the applicant failed to attend. He later sought permission to withdraw both applications.

Bristol City Council, the respondent, consented to withdrawal but claimed approximately £3,500 in costs. The central issue was whether the applicant should pay all or part of those costs, having regard to the wasted hearings, his conduct and his financial and medical circumstances.

The court granted permission to withdraw both the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal.

1. Starting point on costs. The applications were misconceived, and the applicant had not responded sensibly to an explanation from the Criminal Appeal Office. The court and the local authority had incurred expense in connection with two hearings, including the attendance of counsel and efforts to locate the absent applicant. The applicant had also chosen not to accept a lawyer offered at public expense. As a matter of principle and justice, it would therefore have been fair to order him to pay some or all of the authority’s costs. Those who cause public bodies to incur costs and consume scarce public resources should ordinarily pay for them.
2. Ability to pay. The starting point was not conclusive. The applicant appeared to receive only Personal Independence Payment, from which he paid rent and utility bills. His medical conditions meant that any return to work was unlikely for about 14 months. An order would therefore risk depriving him of essential benefits. Although his conduct justified a costs order in principle, it would be harsh to make one in the circumstances.
3. Final order. The court concluded that it had no practical way to order payment without taking part of the applicant’s benefits. No costs order was made, and both applications were withdrawn with the court’s permission.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted permission to withdraw the applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal. No costs order was made.
2. Crown Court at Bristol: The applications concerned an appeal against a confiscation order. The citation and outcome of the underlying order were not stated in the judgment.