Factual and Procedural Background
On 28 November 2011, in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant and his co-defendant twin brother stood trial before His Honour Judge Thorn QC on charges of fraudulent trading under section 933 of the Companies Act 2006 and two counts of contravention of sections 19 and 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The co-defendant brother had pleaded guilty to the latter offences. Following discussions about a sum held in business bank accounts, the prosecution accepted the pleas tendered and offered no evidence against the Appellant. Judge Thorn entered verdicts of not guilty for the Appellant. Subsequently, the Appellant’s legal advisers applied under section 16(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for an order that the Appellant’s costs be paid out of central funds. Judge Thorn refused this application, and the Appellant now appeals that refusal by way of case stated.
The judge’s findings, as set out in the Case Stated, included that the Appellant and his twin brother established a company which accrued significant funds on which no tax was paid and no accounts filed. The company and associated websites were used to disseminate false investment advice based on fictitious identities and false addresses. The Appellant held shares and his details were used on the websites, though his involvement was substantially less than his brother’s. The Defence had misled the police and prosecution into believing the case against the Appellant was stronger than it was, partly due to the Appellant’s mainly non-responsive interviews and lack of a Defence Statement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appeal by way of case stated falls within the court’s jurisdiction given the exclusion for decisions relating to a trial on indictment.
- Whether the Crown Court was justified in refusing the Appellant’s application for reasonable defence costs to be paid out of central funds.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| In Re Smalley [1985] AC 622 |
Defined "trial on indictment" to include trials with guilty pleas; established that certain decisions integral to trial process are excluded from judicial review. |
Used to establish that decisions on costs related to trial on indictment are part of trial process and not subject to judicial review. |
| Reg v Crown Court at Cardiff ex parte Jones [1974] 1 QB 113 |
Addressed orders for costs and their reviewability. |
Referenced in discussion about the exercise of discretion on costs as integral to trial process. |
| Re Sampson [1987] 1 WLR 194 |
Confirmed that certain costs orders at conclusion of trial are not subject to judicial review as they relate to trial on indictment. |
Supported the view that costs decisions are integral to trial and not reviewable. |
| Reg v Wood Green Crown Court ex parte DPP [1993] 1 WLR 723 |
Held refusal to grant defendant’s costs order was reviewable. |
Initially relied upon by Appellant’s counsel but ultimately deemed inconsistent with later House of Lords decisions and overturned. |
| Re Ashton [1994] 1 AC 9 |
Overruled earlier authorities and clarified scope of decisions relating to trial on indictment, limiting judicial review. |
Used to reject the continued authority of Wood Green and similar decisions. |
| Reg v Harrow Crown Court ex parte Perkins (1998) |
Held that refusal to make a defendant’s costs order after no evidence offered is a decision relating to trial on indictment and not reviewable. |
Adopted as authoritative and consistent with House of Lords jurisprudence, overruling Wood Green. |
| Reg v Bolton Crown Court ex parte CPS [2012] EWHC 3570 (Admin) |
Commented on the status of Wood Green in light of Ashton, treating it with caution. |
Supported the view that Wood Green’s reasoning is undermined and not authoritative. |
| Other cases cited: Reg v Norwich Crown Court ex parte Belsham [1992] 1 WLR 54; Reg v Manchester Crown Court ex parte DPP [1993] 1 WLR 693; Reg v Central Criminal Court ex parte Director of Serious Fraud Office (1992); Re Meredith [1973] 1 WLR 435 |
Various procedural and jurisdictional principles relating to appeals and judicial review in criminal trials. |
Discussed in context of scope of judicial review and trial process integration. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing appeals by way of case stated and judicial review in the context of criminal trials on indictment. It emphasized the exclusion under the Senior Courts Act 1981 of decisions "relating to trial on indictment" from judicial review and appeals by case stated. The court analyzed key House of Lords authorities, particularly In Re Smalley and Re Sampson, which established that decisions on costs are integral to the trial process and thus not subject to review.
The court considered the Appellant’s reliance on Reg v Wood Green Crown Court ex parte DPP, which had allowed review of a refusal to pay defence costs after no evidence was offered. However, subsequent House of Lords decisions, especially Re Ashton, had overruled the authorities underpinning Wood Green, and the court found Wood Green inconsistent with the prevailing legal position.
The court further relied on the decision in Reg v Harrow Crown Court ex parte Perkins, which addressed an analogous factual scenario and concluded that refusal to order costs after no evidence was offered is a decision relating to trial on indictment, thus not subject to review. This decision was deemed authoritative and consistent with the legal principles established by the House of Lords.
Given these authorities, the court concluded that the refusal of the costs order by the Crown Court was a decision relating to the trial on indictment and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court hearing the appeal by way of case stated. The court declined to consider the substantive merits of the costs application, deferring to the trial judge’s factual findings and discretion.
Holding and Implications
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by way of case stated against the refusal of the Crown Court to order payment of the Appellant’s defence costs out of central funds, as the decision related to a trial on indictment and was thus excluded from appeal under the Senior Courts Act 1981.
The direct effect of this decision is that the Crown Court’s refusal stands, and the Appellant is not entitled to recover costs from central funds in this instance. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed the established principle that costs decisions integral to a trial on indictment are not subject to judicial review or appeal by case stated.