Newcombe v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Factual and Procedural Background

On the evening of 9 April 2011, the Appellant and a friend were involved in an altercation with another man at a bar in The City, resulting in charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution alleged that the friend punched the complainant from behind and that the Appellant kicked the complainant multiple times while he was on the floor, causing injuries requiring hospital treatment. The Appellant denied the allegations, claiming to have acted as a peacemaker and in self-defence, and pleaded not guilty.

The trial was fixed for 23 November 2012 in Swansea Magistrates' Court. Prior to the trial, the complainant had been expected to be a willing witness. On the trial day, however, the complainant indicated unwillingness to give evidence, prompting the prosecution to offer no evidence and invite dismissal of the charges, which the district judge granted. The district judge ordered the Appellant's costs to be paid from central funds but restricted those costs to the hearing day only. The Appellant appealed against this restriction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the district judge was correct to restrict the Appellant's costs order to only the costs of the trial day hearing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The district judge erred in law by restricting the Appellant’s entitlement to costs to only the day of the trial.
• The restriction was inconsistent with the judge’s conclusion that binding over the Appellant would be inappropriate.
• The judge’s view that the Appellant acted unreasonably by not indicating willingness to be bound over earlier was overly harsh and legally untenable.
• The Appellant had consistently denied wrongdoing and had no reason to propose a bind over before the complainant’s indication of unwillingness to testify.
• The Appellant’s offer to be bound over on the trial day was made promptly once circumstances changed, exceeding reasonable expectations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the district judge’s discretion under section 16(1)(c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the relevant Practice Direction. Although the district judge was experienced and his decision to restrict costs was understandable, the appellate court found that the restriction fell outside the proper bounds of discretion. The judge had based the restriction on the Appellant’s failure to indicate willingness to be bound over earlier, deeming this unreasonable. However, the appellate court held that this reasoning ignored the prosecution’s stance and the Appellant’s consistent denial of wrongdoing. Since the prosecution never suggested a bind over before the complainant’s withdrawal as a witness, the Appellant had no reason to propose one earlier. The Appellant’s prompt offer to be bound over once circumstances changed was found to be more than reasonable. Consequently, there was no positive reason to deny a full costs order. The appellate court therefore concluded the restriction was legally untenable and reversed the decision.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final ruling was to allow the appeal and overturn the restriction on costs. The costs order was replaced with the following:

It is ordered that the costs of the defendant be paid out of central funds.

This decision directly affects the parties by entitling the Appellant to full costs from central funds rather than a restricted award. No new precedent was established, as the ruling reaffirmed established principles regarding defendant’s costs orders and the exercise of judicial discretion.