Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Denning & Anor [1991] EWHC 1 (QB) (07 March 1991)

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Denning & Anor [1991] EWHC 1 (QB) (07 March 1991)

The magistrates' court had jurisdiction to award costs against the prosecution after discontinuance because regulation 3(1) must be construed as permitting a final costs order after proceedings have ended, and the prosecution's failure to review the file and address the weighbridge issue was an improper omission causing unnecessary costs to the defendants.

Citation
[1991] EWHC 1 (QB)
Parties
Appellant: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondents: Defendants (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 1991
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Order on Costs
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Discontinuance of Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Court, Improper Act or Omission
Criminal Law Costs Costs Orders Discontinuance of Proceedings Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Court Improper Act or Omission

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Appellant

Defendants (unnamed)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Order on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether magistrates' court had jurisdiction to award costs against the prosecution after notice of discontinuance under s.23(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's conduct amounted to an unnecessary or improper act or omission justifying a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates' court had jurisdiction to award costs against the prosecution after discontinuance because regulation 3(1) must be construed as permitting a final costs order after proceedings have ended, and the prosecution's failure to review the file and address the weighbridge issue was an improper omission causing unnecessary costs to the defendants.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Affirmative answers to both questions in the case stated
  • Costs order against the prosecution in the sum of £1,548.43 upheld