Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 10 (Jan)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Auld LJ and Gage J

Representation Michael Davies (instructed by Coyne Learmonth, Liverpool) for H.
  The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment Dates: 14 January 2002

Catchwords

Criminal law - Costs - Power to award costs - Award out of central funds - Defence costs - Justices' clerk reducing sum claimed on bill of costs - Clerk determining pre-charge and post-acquittal advice 'in the proceedings' - Whether clerk in error - s 16(6).

The Case

A solicitor's attendance on a client before the client was charged, when the charge was imminent and bail was about to expire, was clearly encompassed by the words 'in the proceedings' in s16(6) of the adopting a sensible and realistic interpretation of that phrase, and thus should have been incorporated into a defendant's costs order. However, it could not be said that the justices' clerk was wrong in law to take the view that advice after acquittal in relation to the destruction of H's fingerprints and photographs was not advice 'in the proceedings' for the purposes of that same section.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.