29 Sept 2022
The magistrate lawfully refused the appellant's costs application because the objective dashcam footage clearly showed the appellant had driven left into the complainant's lane and was very close to the complainant's vehicle, constituting self-invited suspicion; the magistrate did not err in referencing the photographic evidence and the appellate court will not intervene.
13 Jan 2020
The appeal is allowed because the judge misapplied his discretion: the respondent's partial admissions in his interview (incorporated as Admitted Facts) created a misleading impression that his modest declared earnings could not explain the substantial funds, and his failure to disclose his cross‑border mobile‑phone trading business at investigation deprived the prosecution of information that might have prevented the charge; accordingly the respondent brought suspicion upon himself and/or misled the prosecution and was not therefore entitled to the costs ordered.
18 Mar 2015
Although acquitted because the prosecution was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt regarding lack of consent, the defendant's manner of accepting company cheques for personal benefit and the concealment in company records legitimately attracted suspicion; balancing that with the prosecution's failure to verify the defendant's early disclosure, the court exercised its discretion to award the defendant 50% of her costs.
19 Dec 2003
Where a cautioned statement is excluded for reasons that do not impeach its genesis or reliability (eg inadequate form of caution rather than oppression or inducement), the trial judge may, in exercising the discretion to award costs under s.5 Cap.492, have regard to the contents and provenance of that statement for the limited purpose of deciding whether the accused by his or her conduct attracted suspicion; applying that principle to the facts, the Deputy Judge did not err in law in refusing costs and the judicial review is dismissed.