Olden v Crown Prosecution Service

Olden v Crown Prosecution Service

The appellant's systematic and admitted dishonesty in obtaining false identities and defrauding lenders was conduct of a wholly reprehensible sort, which the court was bound to take into account. The judge properly exercised his discretion under CPR 44 to make no order as to costs, notwithstanding the appellant's acquittal on a technicality. The fact that the prosecution was conducted in good faith further supported this outcome.

Parties
Appellant: Ronald Olden; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs in Restraint Order Proceedings) / Appeal From Administrative Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Restraint Orders, Civil Procedure Rules, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Costs Restraint Orders Civil Procedure Rules Criminal Justice Act 1988

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Olden

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs in Restraint Order Proceedings) / Appeal From Administrative Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to costs of restraint order proceedings after his criminal conviction was quashed on a technicality
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in applying criminal costs principles instead of civil procedure rules

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's systematic and admitted dishonesty in obtaining false identities and defrauding lenders was conduct of a wholly reprehensible sort, which the court was bound to take into account. The judge properly exercised his discretion under CPR 44 to make no order as to costs, notwithstanding the appellant's acquittal on a technicality. The fact that the prosecution was conducted in good faith further supported this outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs in the restraint order proceedings