Jake Worsley, R (on the application of) v Tameside Magistrates’ Court

A Divisional Court may hear an outstanding central-funds costs application by transferring still-pending High Court proceedings under CPR r. 3.1(2)(c). For section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, proceedings are not determined in their entirety while an application arising from them remains to be decided, even if the merits and other costs issues have been resolved. A magistrates’ court may make a defendant’s costs order only in the circumstances specified by section 16(1); quashing a conviction on judicial review does not itself meet those conditions. An individual may recover qualifying legal costs incurred in magistrates’ court proceedings where the statutory condition is met. The amount must reasonably compensate properly incurred expenses, subject to any justified reduction.

After Jake Worsley’s conviction for failing to provide a blood specimen was quashed on judicial review, the matter was remitted to the magistrates’ court. The judicial review succeeded because the magistrates had convicted him before hearing closing arguments. The conviction was quashed by Hill J in R (Worsley) v Tameside Magistrates’ Court [2026] EWHC 1789 (Admin). Worsley then sought £750 from central funds for his legal costs of the magistrates’ court hearing. The Divisional Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make that order after a single judge had determined the substantive judicial review claim, and whether the statutory conditions for an order were met.

1. Jurisdiction. The application was granted. CPR r. 3.1(2)(c) permits the High Court to direct that any of its proceedings be heard by a Divisional Court, and that power may be exercised at any stage. The meaning of “proceedings” depends on statutory context and purpose. The general approach in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (No. 2) [2017] UKSC 23 and Achille v Lawn Tennis Association Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1407 is that proceedings continue until all matters before the court have been concluded. Costs at the end of a judicial review claim are an inherent part of that jurisdiction: Darroch v Football Association Premier League Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1220. As Worsley’s application for a defendant’s costs order remained outstanding, the proceedings had not been determined in their entirety for section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The case could therefore be transferred to the Divisional Court, which could determine the application.
2. Magistrates’ court jurisdiction. Remittal to the magistrates’ court was not appropriate. Section 16(1) permits an order only in specified circumstances, such as where charges are not proceeded with or dismissed, or the accused is not committed for trial. None applied: Worsley’s conviction had been quashed on judicial review, and he might face a fresh trial. The court also relied on the non-exhaustive definition of “proceedings” in section 21(1), the provision for costs incurred before proceedings begin in section 17, and the absence of any apparent parliamentary intention to disadvantage a person whose costs followed a serious procedural failing.
3. Amount and eligibility. Section 16(6) provides for an amount reasonably sufficient to compensate properly incurred expenses; section 16(6A) permits a lesser amount where full recovery is inappropriate. Under section 16A, Condition B was met because Worsley was an individual seeking legal costs incurred in magistrates’ court proceedings. The court ordered £750, finding it reasonable and proportionate, and saw no basis for reduction.

Hill J granted judicial review and quashed the conviction in R (Worsley) v Tameside Magistrates’ Court [2026] EWHC 1789 (Admin) . The present Divisional Court determined Worsley’s subsequent application for his magistrates’ court legal costs.