News

NEWS IN DETAIL:
Geoffrey Miller triumphs in the High Court over costs

Monday 30th March 09, 1:50pm

Geoffrey Miller Solicitors were victorious at the High Court on 19 March 2009 when the decision was confirmed that a court was wrong to refuse to make an order for the defendant’s costs to be paid when they had been acquitted on a technicality.

Historically, a defendant was ordinarily granted an order for their legal costs to be paid out of court central funds when they are acquitted or a case against them is dropped. However, in this particular client’s case, the Court refused to make an order because they said although he had been acquitted, he was acquitted on a technicality and implied that they actually thought he was guilty. This decision was totally contrary to the laws on costs and to the intricate Human Rights laws.

The case was brought on behalf of a Geoffrey Miller client against Basildon Crown Court. We applied for judicial review of the decision of the defendant Crown Court to refuse to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. Our client’s conviction for driving with excess alcohol had been quashed by the Crown Court because it was not satisfied that the police had asked a required question namely, question A14 of Form MG DD/A of the pro forma procedure document used in drink driving cases. The Crown Court refused to award S his costs on the basis that S had been acquitted on a technicality that was an important but unmeritorious point; that it was satisfied that our client had driven well over the limit and that in the circumstances our client had brought the prosecution on himself. We also applied applied for the Crown Court to state a case as to why it refused his application for costs.

The High Court made the following points in its ruling:

(1) The Crown Court was wrong in law to refuse to state a case as the Crown Court could only consider a refusal to do so where a case was frivolous, but it was clear that our client’s case was not frivolous but one of substance.

(2) It was appropriate for the High Court to consider whether the Crown Court should have awarded S his costs. Having regard to Practice Direction (Costs: Criminal Proceedings) (2004) 1 WLR 2657 CA (Crim Div) it was clear that it was not open to the Crown Court to say that having quashed our client's conviction that the point on which that conviction was quashed was unmeritorious. Moreover, the Crown Court erred in suggesting, in its reasons for refusing our client’s costs, that he was guilty of criminal conduct. The Crown Court further erred in refusing his costs because he had brought the prosecution on himself, as it was clear from the 2004 Practice Direction that it was not appropriate to refuse a defendant his costs because he had brought a prosecution on himself and that more was required, such as a defendant having misled the prosecution.

In the instant case it was clear that our client had not misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against him was stronger than it was. Accordingly, the Crown Court had erred in refusing our client his costs. (3) (Per Curium) So far as the Crown Court might have had regard to Practice Direction (CA (Crim Div): Costs in Criminal Proceedings) (1991) 1 WLR 498 CA (Crim Div) Part II (2)(2)(b), which stated that a positive reason for not awarding a defendant costs was where "there is ample evidence to support a conviction but the defendant is acquitted on a technicality which has no merit" it had be borne in mind that the wording was removed from the 2004 Practice Direction and was conspicuously absent. That absence was something that had to be carefully regarded.

Whilst our application was granted it is highly relevant as there is presently a Ministry of Justice Consultation, the results of which have not yet been published, that propose to do away with ANY costs being paid to acquitted defendants in cases such as our client’s. Senior Partner, Jeanette Miller, was consulted about this proposal back in November 2008 when the press reported on the topic:

'Speeding' drivers should pay up even if they go to court and win, say ministers

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 11:58 PM on 06th November 2008

Drivers who challenge speeding fines should be made to pay their legal bills even if they win their case, ministers said yesterday.

The proposal would see successful defendants lose their century-old right to claim back their costs.

A change in the law would affect many of the 1.7million drivers a year who take their cases to court.

Ministers are proposing that defendants lose their century-old right to claim back their legal costs

It costs around £1,500 to fight charges of speeding, illegal parking and other motoring offences.

Motoring groups and lawyers said the proposal was a breach of fundamental legal principles.

Edmund King, president of the AA, said: 'This is against the common law and against the common man. If you prove your innocence you shouldn't have to pay for it.'

Ian Kelcey, head of the Law Society's criminal law committee, called the scheme a disgrace.

He added: 'This means that an awful lot of people will not be able to get a fair trial. They will not be able to get a proper defence.'

The proposal comes in a consultation paper published by Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice. It says those before magistrates on minor charges should defend themselves.

Lord Bach, a junior minister, likened those who use lawyers in lower courts to parents who pay for private education.

He said: 'Just as an individual who chooses to put their child through private education does not reclaim this cost from the education system, nor should public funding recompense those who choose to pay privately for a lawyer when a publicly-funded alternative is available.'

The consultation paper is among a series aimed at cutting court costs and trimming the £2billion-a-year legal aid budget.

Currently a driver who wishes to challenge a minor motoring charge in a magistrates court is denied legal aid unless they are on a very modest income.

But they can hire a lawyer and claim back the cost if cleared.

Ministers want to withdraw this right, arguing that defendants do not need lawyers and can turn to court clerks for advice.

Under the proposals, Crown Court defendants will still be entitled defence lawyers on legal aid. But if they hire their own, more expensive, lawyers ministers say they should not be able to claim the full cost back if they win.

The Government is seeking to shrink the £60million Central Funds budget, which reimburses successful defendants. It is thought that ending costs payments for innocent drivers will save £5million.

The ministry's consultation paper said: 'In these straightforward cases, defence representation is not a requirement for an individual.

'Magistrates courts are traditionally set up to deal with litigants in person and have qualified legal advisers who can and do assist litigants in person.'

Mr King said the changes would not hurt the wealthy but those on middle incomes.

He added: 'You should be innocent until you are proven guilty, and if you prove your innocence you should not have to pay for it.'

Jeanette Miller, of Geoffrey Miller, a leading motoring law firm, said: 'To do away with costs in these cases appears to go against the interests of justice.

'People will not be able to afford lawyers, particularly specialist lawyers who know what they are doing. Are we going to see people denied the right to a lawyer at all in the future?'