30 Apr 2024
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed; because the acquittal was on the merits, the appellant did not mislead the prosecution nor behave reprehensibly and was not acquitted on a technicality, the court ordered that the costs of the lower court hearing and of the appeal be paid to the appellant, to be taxed if not agreed.
9 Jul 2021
Although the right to silence is fundamental, the court will refuse costs where a defendant’s silence at investigation deprived the prosecution of explanations that later formed the basis of acquittal; here the court found objective documentary and institutional evidence (records, invoices, business‑unit awareness and acquiescence) already disclosed issues such that the defendants’ silence did not mislead the prosecution, and therefore awarding costs to both acquitted defendants was justified.
16 Nov 2020
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly considered the relevant factors, was entitled to find that absent the appellant's trial explanation an irresistible inference of guilt could have been drawn from possession of the false identity card, and correctly exercised discretion to refuse public payment of trial costs; the right to silence can be a relevant consideration in costs applications where failure or delay to disclose a defence has prejudicial consequences for the public prosecution or trial process.
18 Apr 2018
The magistrate's refusal to award costs was inconsistent with her acquittal reasoning: she acquitted the appellant because the prosecution failed to exclude that the appellant's visual impairment affected her perception, yet punished her for failing to disclose that same impairment to police; because the medical evidence and plea material were already before the prosecution and the acquittal was grounded on that impairment, the appellant should not be deprived of costs. The appeal is allowed and costs awarded.
29 Sept 2016
The Court exercised its discretion under the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance: appellants were entitled to costs of the appeal and incidental matters, but because both appellants had brought suspicion upon themselves the Court awarded only half their costs of the District Court trial with certificates for two counsel; the prosecution’s failure to give timely notice of its publication application was an improper act under s17 causing adjournment, so the appellants were awarded the wasted costs of the vacated appeal dates; a certificate for three counsel was refused as the case was not excepti…
16 Jan 2015
Although acquittal ordinarily attracts costs, the court deprived the appellant of trial costs because his conduct invited suspicion sufficient to justify departing from the general rule; separately, the appeals were not of such exceptional difficulty to warrant certificates for more than two counsel, so the appellant's application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the order nisi made absolute.
23 Feb 2012
The magistrate's stated reasons for withholding costs were either contradictory to the acquittal or irrelevant; therefore the discretion was misapplied and the appeal is allowed to award the appellant her costs below, with costs here to be determined.
16 Oct 2009
The appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent because the magistrate correctly found, on CCTV and other evidence, that the appellant's conduct in following and laying hands on a leaving drunk brought the matter upon himself; he was not acting in self‑defence and therefore the refusal to award costs was justified.
13 Feb 2008
The magistrate properly exercised judicial discretion under s.3(1)(c) to refuse costs because the appellants' failure to disclose their defence during the investigatory stage brought suspicion upon them and could have affected the investigation and prosecution; accordingly the refusal of costs was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
19 Dec 2007
Because the Magistrate accepted the appellant's truthful evidence that she did not know and had no reasonable grounds to believe the monies were proceeds of crime and there was insufficient evidence to justify an irresistible inference of knowledge or that she 'brought suspicion' upon herself, the refusal to award costs was unsupported by the evidence; the appellate court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered costs.