Following a withdrawal on an appeal against conviction, the Prosecution sought costs from two Defendants’ at Manchester Crown Court on the basis that work had been undertaken by the Crown despite a withdrawal of the appeal ten days before the hearing date.
In this case, the Crown had not complied with the CrimPr 45 and had not made a formal application for costs. Therefore, they had not adequately put the Defence on notice of what amount was being sought. Ms Shaw made the point that due to lack of compliance, the case should be dismissed.
Mr Howarth addressed the court on the merits of the application. In doing so, the submission was made that the court has a discretion to award costs and it should have not been exercised were adequate notice of a withdrawal had been made, meaning less work conducted by the Prosecution. In the alternative, the court could reduce the reward so that it was ‘just and reasonable’ to reflect the means of the Defendants.
The Judge was persuaded by both Counsel and addressed the merits of the application despite lack of compliance; in doing so, he refused the Crown’s application for costs.
Both Ms Shaw and Mr Howarth conduct a wide range of matters relating to costs in the Crown and the Magistrates Court. Should you have any queries or CPD requirements, please contact a member of the clerking team.