Singh, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates Court & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE BEATSON
- MR JUSTICE BEAN
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant, charged with drug possession and driving while unfit through drugs, requested costs under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 after an abortive initial hearing due to the prosecution's failure to provide necessary documentation. The application was originally denied because the responsible party was not identified. However, the High Court, upon judicial review, held that the deputy district judge's denial was incorrect. The court clarified that a single mistake causing unnecessary costs can be sufficient for granting costs under section 19, and thus, they ordered the prosecution to pay the claimant's costs of £864.
Judgment
Mr Justice Bean:
This is the judgment of the court.
The claimant was charged on 29 th April 2013 with possession of a controlled drug and driving while unfit through drugs. He was bailed to attend the Ealing Magistrates’ court on 17 th May. He attended on that day together with a legal representative for whom he was paying himself. The hearing on 17 th May was entirely abortive since no prosecution papers were available. The claimant’s advocate applied for costs against the prosecution pursuant to section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 . Both the substantive hearing and the application for costs were adjourned to 23 rd May.
On 23 rd May the claimant appeared before a deputy district judge and pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled drug. He was sentenced to a fine of £75 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £20. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of driving whilst unfit which was adjourned for trial. The judge then considered the defence application for the costs of the 17 th May hearing under section 19 and refused it. A note of the judge’s oral decision made by the deputy clerk to the justices reads as follows:-
“Who was responsible for the wasted hearing?
What could have been done to avoid this?
Fact – defendant arrested and taken to Acton Police Station. Taken and charged with 2 matters. Process of Police involves OIC (officer in case) preparing papers and leaving it in a tray. As I understand it is a tray designated for papers.
OIC has no further involvement in administration. Papers are then collected by the case progression unit – who they are is still unclear to me. Case progression officers then hand papers on to prosecution.
Matter didn’t proceed on 17/05/2013 as someone in the case progression unit didn’t do their job or missed the papers or that person who was responsible to hand papers to the CPS didn’t.
However, no clear identification of party responsible. Statutory test states we need to identify the party whose fault it was. Unable to identify the party in the statutory test I have to apply. Cannot make wasted costs order.
Application fails.”
On 23 rd August the claimant sought judicial review of the judge’s decision refusing his application for costs. The CPS was served as an interested party. On 18 th January 2014 permission was granted on the papers by Irwin J. For reasons which will appear later in this judgment Mr Morley QC for the claimant and Mr Richardson for t