Anthony McGill, R (on the application of) v Newcastle Magistrates' Court

A self-represented private prosecutor may recover from central funds both disbursements and compensable work properly incurred in High Court proceedings concerning an indictable offence. The recoverable period is confined to work incurred in the proceedings, and may exclude preparatory work undertaken before the challenged decision. Where the claimant agrees the relevant amount, the court may fix costs by reference to that amount or, where appropriate, a lesser amount. Costs against a magistrates’ court are exceptional. An interested party which resisted judicial review will not ordinarily be liable where it did not take the underlying administrative decision leading to the proceedings.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings concerning Newcastle Magistrates’ Court’s refusal to issue a summons for an alleged forgery of a shareholding agreement. The claim was allowed and the decision was quashed on 21 May 2024. The court then invited costs submissions.

The claimant, acting in person, sought £6,150.80, comprising disbursements and claimed work. The issue was whether costs should be paid from central funds under section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, calculated under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 CPR 46.5, or instead be ordered against the Defendant Court or the CPS.

1. Central-funds costs. The claimant was entitled to an order for the costs of a self-represented private prosecutor pursuant to section 17(1)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, read with CPR 46.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
2. Recoverable period and amount. The relevant period ran from the Defendant Court’s decision on 11 October 2022 to the claimant’s costs submissions on 4 June 2024. Work undertaken in September 2021 and September 2022 was not sufficiently incurred in the proceedings and was excluded. The court allowed all claimed disbursements and relevant work within the recoverable period, fixing the amount at £5,837.30 under section 17(2B)(a), alternatively section 17(2A) and (2B)(b).
3. Meaning of expenses. The statutory reference to expenses extended beyond disbursements to compensable work under CPR 46.5(3)(a)(i). The rule permits a self-represented litigant’s costs to include work which would have been allowed if undertaken by a legal representative. The court relied on R (Charlson) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court [2006] EWHC 2318 (Admin), where a private prosecutor’s lawyer’s work was included within expenses payable from central funds.
4. Costs against public authorities. An order against the Defendant Court was an exceptional course and was not justified. The CPS had resisted the judicial review as an interested party, but had not taken the underlying administrative decision leading to the proceedings. That, together with the circumstances of the case, was insufficient to justify an order against the CPS.
5. Payment of £5,837.30 from central funds to the claimant was ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The substantive judicial review claim was allowed and the Newcastle Magistrates’ Court decision was quashed on 21 May 2024: R (McGill) v Newcastle Magistrates’ Court [2024] EWHC 1207 (Admin).
• High Court (Administrative Court): In the present costs judgment, payment from central funds was ordered. No costs order was made against the Defendant Court or the CPS.