Blacow v R

Blacow v R

The Crown Court erred in law by refusing the appellant a defendant's costs order for the balance of his costs before the magistrates' court, as his conduct did not both bring suspicion on himself and mislead the prosecution, and there was no other good reason for denial. The decision was an unlawful exercise of discretion.

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 Judicial Discretion, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Criminal Law Costs Defendant's Costs Order Exercise of Judicial Discretion Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 3 Authorities cited 4 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 a Wednesbury unreasonable exercise of discretion
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct justified denial of costs under the Practice Direction

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court erred in law by refusing the appellant a defendant's costs order for the balance of his costs before the magistrates' court, as his conduct did not both bring suspicion on himself and mislead the prosecution, and there was no other good reason for denial. The decision was an unlawful exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Extension of time for appeal granted
  • Decision of Preston Crown Court of 24 September 2010 on costs quashed