IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AND THE FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Wilson)
B e f o r e :
Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
MR JUSTICE EVANS-LOMBE
|CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE||Respondent|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS BARBER (instructed by CPS Casework Directorate, London EC4M 7EX) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
(AS APPROVED BY THE COURT)
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 27th November 2003
1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is an appeal by the intervener against that part of an order made by Wilson J in concurrent proceedings in the Administrative Court in the Family Division on 20th April 2003 whereby he made no order as to costs as between any of the parties before him. The proceedings had been initiated by the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS") against the defendant, Anthony Grimes, who is the intervener's former husband. He played no part in the matter with which we are concerned on this appeal, which relates to the rival claims by the CPS and Mrs Grimes to the whole and to half of a sum of £54,265.00 held by two firms of solicitors on a joint deposit account.
26. LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: It is right to say that the Crown Prosecution Service did not respond to a viable suggestion made in correspondence to the appellant's solicitors.
"If it [the CPS] had no prior insight into the likely credibility of the wife's oral evidence, then it was perfectly entitled to say that the state required her to come to court and establish the matters which she was asserting in her affidavit."
In the prior paragraph, however, he had said:
"This, however, in my view was not a case on the part of the wife which, on paper, was in any way bound to succeed; nor even, on paper, could it be said that it would probably succeed."
The case put on paper by Mrs Grimes was, in my respectful view, fully capable of succeeding, providing it was believed. Of course the CPS was entitled to probe it and to submit that it should not be believed. But in this it failed.
Order: Appeal allowed as above with costs subject to detailed assessment.