AG v Troy [2003] JRC 099 (18 June 2003)
An award of costs is not appropriate where the applicant is acquitted on one count but convicted on another, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as an early plea to a lesser offence and the prosecution's insistence on proceeding on a more serious count. In this case, the applicant did not offer a plea, the charges were closely interlinked, and the criminal process was properly engaged. There is a positive reason not to award costs.
- Citation
- [2003] JRC 099
- Parties
- Applicant: John Robin Troy; Respondent: Attorney General
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Costs Application / Post Acquittal, Post Conviction, Costs Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Acquittal, Conviction, Costs in Criminal Cases, Judicial Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Robin Troy
Applicant
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Costs Application / Post Acquittal, Post Conviction, Costs Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, acquitted on one count but convicted on another, should be awarded costs out of public funds.
Ratio Decidendi
An award of costs is not appropriate where the applicant is acquitted on one count but convicted on another, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as an early plea to a lesser offence and the prosecution's insistence on proceeding on a more serious count. In this case, the applicant did not offer a plea, the charges were closely interlinked, and the criminal process was properly engaged. There is a positive reason not to award costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment