QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BEAN
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MANINDER SINGH
|- and -
|EALING MAGISTRATES COURT
|- and -
|THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
Alistair Richardson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Interested Party
The Defendant court did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 01 May 2014
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Bean:
This is the judgment of the court.
"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.
"….in any case where the court is satisfied that one party to criminal proceedings has incurred costs as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission by, or on behalf of, another party to the proceedings, to make an order as to the payment of those costs."
Regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 repeats the wording of the test set out in section 19(1) of the Act. It should be noted at the outset that the power is older than, and distinct from, the jurisdiction to make wasted costs orders against legal representatives, created by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and set out in section 19A of the 1985 Act.
"… the word "improper" in this context does not necessarily connote some grave impropriety. Used, as it is, in conjunction with the word "unnecessary" it is, in my judgment, intended to cover an act or omission which would not have occurred if the party concerned had conducted his case properly."
"An examination of the language of the Regulations makes it clear that the proper exercise of the jurisdiction under Regulation 3 requires, first, the judge to consider whether there has been an unnecessary or improper act or omission. Secondly, the judge has to consider whether costs have been incurred as a result of that unnecessary or improper act or omission by one of the parties. Thirdly, the court has to consider whether it will as a matter of discretion order all or part of the costs so incurred to paid to the other party by the party in default. It is implicit in the last stage that, before an order is made, the judge is required to identify the costs so incurred (that is the costs incurred as a result of the unnecessary or improper act or omission). Having performed those exercises, finally, the judge will have to specify the amount of costs to be paid. There is therefore a formal structure to be followed before an order is made."
"(5) If, on an application for judicial review, the High Court quashes the decision to which the application relates, it may in addition
(a) remit the matter to the court, tribunal or authority which made the decision, with a direction to reconsider the matter and reach a decision in accordance with the findings of the High Court, or
(b) submit its own decision for the decision in question.
(5A) But the power conferred by subsection (5)(b) is exercisable only if
(a) the decision in question was made by a court or tribunal.
(b) the decision is quashed on the ground that there has been an error of law, and
(c) without the error, there would have been only one decision which the court or tribunal could have reached.
(5B) Unless the High Court otherwise directs, a decision substituted by it under subsection (5)(b) has effect as if it were a decision of the relevant court or tribunal."