||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 10 (Jan)
Auld LJ and Gage J
||Michael Davies (instructed by Coyne Learmonth, Liverpool) for H.
||The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
||14 January 2002
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).
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.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary