R v BDI & Ors

R v BDI & Ors

Private prosecutors are entitled to an order for payment of costs from central funds for expenses properly incurred in resisting the abuse of process application and on appeal, but because they failed to give the CPS a reasonable opportunity to prosecute and did not test the market for legal representation, the amount recoverable must be reduced so as not to exceed the expenses that would have been incurred had the CPS conducted the prosecution.

Parties
Appellant: The King; Respondent: BDI; Respondent: AMU; Respondent: BFP; Respondent: ADX; Respondent: BCX; Interested Party: Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution
Outcome
Application for costs allowed in part; costs to be paid from central funds but capped at CPS-equivalent rates.
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution, Costs Out of Central Funds, Abuse of Process, Prosecution Costs Orders, Role of CPS, Assessment of Costs
Criminal Law Costs Private Prosecution Costs Out of Central Funds Abuse of Process Prosecution Costs Orders Role of CPS Assessment of Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Appellant

BDI

Respondent

AMU

Respondent

BFP

Respondent

ADX

Respondent

BCX

Respondent

Lord Chancellor

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether private prosecutors are entitled to recover costs from central funds after successful appeal against stay of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether costs should be reduced to CPS-equivalent rates due to failure to involve state prosecuting authorities or test the market for legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Private prosecutors are entitled to an order for payment of costs from central funds for expenses properly incurred in resisting the abuse of process application and on appeal, but because they failed to give the CPS a reasonable opportunity to prosecute and did not test the market for legal representation, the amount recoverable must be reduced so as not to exceed the expenses that would have been incurred had the CPS conducted the prosecution.

Court Disposition

Application for costs allowed in part; costs to be paid from central funds but capped at CPS-equivalent rates.

Orders

  • Order pursuant to s17(1) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for payment out of central funds of costs reasonably sufficient to compensate private prosecutors for expenses properly incurred in resisting the abuse of process application, the appeal, and the costs hearing.
  • Order pursuant to s17(2A) that the sum awarded be reduced so as not to exceed expenses that would have been incurred by the CPS.