Cornish & Anor, R. v (rev 1)

Cornish & Anor, R. v (rev 1)

The prosecution's conduct was not improper or unnecessary within the meaning of s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and Regulation 3. The decision to prosecute was based on expert evidence and was not obviously doomed to fail at the time. The evidential failure only became apparent during cross-examination at trial. The threshold for a costs order was not met.

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 in Criminal Cases
Criminal Law Medical Law Gross Negligence Manslaughter Corporate Manslaughter Costs in Criminal Cases

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 22 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's conduct was improper or unnecessary under s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and Regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, justifying a costs order against the Crown
  2. 2 Whether the evidence against the Trust and Dr Cornish was so lacking that the prosecution should not have been pursued

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution's conduct was not improper or unnecessary within the meaning of s.19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and Regulation 3. The decision to prosecute was based on expert evidence and was not obviously doomed to fail at the time. The evidential failure only became apparent during cross-examination at trial. The threshold for a costs order was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed

Orders

  • The Trust's s.19 application for costs is dismissed.