Evans & Ors v The Serious Fraud Office

Evans & Ors v The Serious Fraud Office

The SFO acted improperly under section 19 by contesting the dismissal application after being notified of its deficiencies, causing unnecessary costs through repeated, legally incoherent changes in prosecution theory. This conduct satisfied the threshold for a costs order. The SFO's conduct in the voluntary bill...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Eric Evans; Applicant: David Alan Whiteley; Applicant: Frances Bodman; Applicant: Stephen Davies; Applicant: Richard Walters; Applicant: Leighton Humphreys; Respondent: The Serious Fraud Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal and Civil / Costs Determination Following Dismissal and Voluntary Bill Applications
Outcome
Costs orders granted against the SFO under section 19 for the Dismissal Application and on the indemnity basis for the Voluntary Bill Application.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Costs Orders, Prosecutorial Conduct, Indemnity Costs, Section 19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Voluntary Bill of Indictment
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Costs Conspiracy to Defraud Costs Orders Prosecutorial Conduct Indemnity Costs Section 19 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Evans

Applicant

David Alan Whiteley

Applicant

Frances Bodman

Applicant

Stephen Davies

Applicant

Richard Walters

Applicant

Leighton Humphreys

Applicant

The Serious Fraud Office

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal and Civil / Costs Determination Following Dismissal and Voluntary Bill Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SFO's conduct satisfied the statutory precondition for costs under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether costs of the voluntary bill application should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The SFO acted improperly under section 19 by contesting the dismissal application after being notified of its deficiencies, causing unnecessary costs through repeated, legally incoherent changes in prosecution theory. This conduct satisfied the threshold for a costs order. The SFO's conduct in the voluntary bill application was sufficiently unreasonable to warrant indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Costs orders granted against the SFO under section 19 for the Dismissal Application and on the indemnity basis for the Voluntary Bill Application.

Orders

  • SFO to pay Applicants' costs of criminal proceedings from and including the 23 September 2013 hearing under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
  • SFO to pay Applicants' costs of the voluntary bill application on the indemnity basis.