Cornish & Anor, R. v (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 779 (QB) (15 April 2016)

Cornish & Anor, R. v (rev 1) [2016] EWHC 779 (QB) (15 April 2016)

The decision to prosecute the Trust was not improper or unnecessary within the meaning of s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The prosecution was based on expert evidence that was not obviously unreliable at the time, and the evidential failures only became apparent during cross-examination at trial. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 779
Parties
Prosecution: R; First Defendant: Dr Errol Cornish; Second Defendant: Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Costs Application Following Acquittal at Trial
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Gross Negligence Manslaughter, Corporate Manslaughter, Costs in Criminal Proceedings, Expert Evidence, Duty of Care
Criminal Law Medical Law Gross Negligence Manslaughter Corporate Manslaughter Costs in Criminal Proceedings Expert Evidence Duty of Care

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Dr Errol Cornish

First Defendant

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Costs Application Following Acquittal at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of the Trust was improper or unnecessary under s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, justifying a costs order against the Crown
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Crown or its reliance on expert evidence amounted to impropriety

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to prosecute the Trust was not improper or unnecessary within the meaning of s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The prosecution was based on expert evidence that was not obviously unreliable at the time, and the evidential failures only became apparent during cross-examination at trial. There was no bad faith, no error of law, and no conduct by the Crown that could be characterised as improper. The threshold for a costs order was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed

Orders

  • The Trust's application for costs under s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 is dismissed.