Jones, R (on the application of) v Guildford Crown Court

1. We have now been shown a copy of Judge Addison’s remarks when he ordered Miss Jones to pay £500 in respect of the costs of the appeal, in addition to the fine of £100 and the costs of £350 which she was required to pay under the magistrates’ court order. 2. The court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against an unsuccessful appellant stems from section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 , which empowers a court to make such order as to costs to be paid by the accused to the prosecutor as it considers just and reasonable. In making its order there is no evidence that the Crown Court had in mind a number of important principles which are always relevant when a criminal court is considering whether to make a costs order against an impecunious defendant like Miss Jones who is destitute, suffers from psychiatric problems, and is not even in receipt of state benefits. Miss Calder has referred us to such authorities as Whalley (1972) 56 Cr App R 304 ; Hayden [1975] 1 WLR 852 ; Firmston (1984) 6 Cr App R(S) 189; and R v Nottingham justices ex p Fohmann [1987] 84 Cr App R 316 . She has also cited the Practice Direction (Crime: Costs) [1992] 1 WLR 498 which contains this injunction: “An order should be made where the Court is satisfied that the offender or appellant has the means and ability to pay.” 3. This is not an occasion on which the court need consider these matters in any great detail. It is sufficient to say that we consider that they raise issues fit for argument in this court. Although an application has been made for an order requiring the Crown Court to state a case, we now have the transcript of the court’s reasons, and in our judgment it would be very much more convenient if we granted permission to apply for judicial review of the costs order. 4. By this means, the papers can now be served on the Crown Court (including transcripts of both the judgments of this court) and if Judge Addison considers it appropriate, the earlier costs order can be quashed and the case remitted (on the issue of costs) for reconsideration with as little further expense being incurred in this court as is reasonably possible.