Blacow v R [2012] EWHC 3469 (Admin) (14 November 2012)

Blacow v R [2012] EWHC 3469 (Admin) (14 November 2012)

The Crown Court erred in law by refusing a defendant's costs order where the appellant's conduct did not bring the proceedings upon himself nor mislead the prosecution, making the refusal an unlawful exercise of discretion under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the relevant Practice Direction.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3469 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Blacow; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Crown Court to High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Defendant's Costs Order, Exercise of Discretion, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Criminal Law Costs Defendant's Costs Order Exercise of Discretion Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Blacow

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Crown Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court's refusal to grant a defendant's costs order was Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise unlawful
  2. 2 Proper exercise of discretion under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court erred in law by refusing a defendant's costs order where the appellant's conduct did not bring the proceedings upon himself nor mislead the prosecution, making the refusal an unlawful exercise of discretion under section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the relevant Practice Direction.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Extension of time for appeal granted
  • Decision of Preston Crown Court of 24 September 2010 quashed insofar as it relates to defendant's costs order