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 trial. There was no bad faith or stark...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 779 (QB)
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 / Post Trial Costs Application Following Acquittal
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Gross Negligence Manslaughter, Corporate Manslaughter, Costs Orders, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Expert Evidence
Criminal Law Medical Law Gross Negligence Manslaughter Corporate Manslaughter Costs Orders Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 Expert Evidence

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 / Post Trial Costs Application Following Acquittal

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 in prosecuting the Trust met the threshold of impropriety required for a costs order

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 trial. There was no bad faith or stark impropriety by the Crown. Accordingly, 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.