Jackson & Anor, R v [2018] NICC 20 (14 December 2018)

Jackson & Anor, R v [2018] NICC 20 (14 December 2018)

The court held that the prosecution was justified in bringing and continuing the case against both applicants, based on apparently credible evidence and a reasonable investigation. There was no fault or impropriety by the prosecution, and the applicants' conduct did not contribute to the prosecution. The statutory discretion to award defence costs is unfettered but must be exercised on the facts of the case. There is no presumption in favour of awarding costs on acquittal, and personal or reputational consequences are not compensable under the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the applications for defence costs were refused.

Citation
[2018] NICC 20
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Patrick Jackson; Applicant/defendant: Stuart Olding; Respondent/prosecutor: Public Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal (costs Application) / Post Acquittal Costs Application
Outcome
Applications for defence costs refused.
Legal Topics
Defence Costs on Acquittal, Judicial Discretion in Awarding Costs, Costs Against Prosecution, Presumption of Innocence, Impact of Acquittal on Costs, Public Interest in Prosecution
Criminal Law Costs Defence Costs on Acquittal Judicial Discretion in Awarding Costs Costs Against Prosecution Presumption of Innocence Impact of Acquittal on Costs Public Interest in Prosecution

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Jackson

Applicant/defendant

Stuart Olding

Applicant/defendant

Public Prosecution Service

Respondent/prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal (costs Application) / Post Acquittal Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What factors should guide the court's discretion to award defence costs under section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act (Northern Ireland) 1968?
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution was justified in bringing and continuing the case against the applicants?
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct contributed to the prosecution or its continuation?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prosecution was justified in bringing and continuing the case against both applicants, based on apparently credible evidence and a reasonable investigation. There was no fault or impropriety by the prosecution, and the applicants' conduct did not contribute to the prosecution. The statutory discretion to award defence costs is unfettered but must be exercised on the facts of the case. There is no presumption in favour of awarding costs on acquittal, and personal or reputational consequences are not compensable under the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the applications for defence costs were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for defence costs refused.