Criminal costs - awarded to successful defendant?

NUTLEY BOY

In a civil action costs usually follow the event but subject to the trial judge's discretion. What is the position in a criminal case ?

Suppose the following ;

D is prosecuted and acquitted on a criminal charge.
D has no legal aid entitlement.
The decision to prosecute was a reasonable one i.e. no issue of malicious prosecution.
D incurs considerable costs in instructing a solicitor and counsel to defend the case.

Is there any right for D to seek his costs from the court ?
If not, why not ?

Pat Mustard

If the Gardai/DPP prosecute(s), costs are not awarded.

However, if the prosecution was by some other body such as the local authority, health authority, etc., costs can be sought. Whether or not they will be awarded will be another matter and will depend on the circumstances.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

If the Gardai/DPP prosecute(s), costs are not awarded.

However, if the prosecution was by some other body such as the local authority, health authority, etc., costs can be sought. Whether or not they will be awarded will be another matter and will depend on the circumstances.

That only applies in the District Court, cost can be awarded in a indictment and have been so awarded.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That only applies in the District Court, cost can be awarded in a indictment and have been so awarded.

Wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link to a case?

(I see that the annual reports refer to costs being awarded against the DPP alright but I didn't spot the details as to how those instances arose.)https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/AR_2012_%5Beng%5D.pdf

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

Wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link to a case?

(I see that the annual reports refer to costs being awarded against the DPP alright but I didn't spot the details as to how those instances arose.)https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/AR_2012_%5Beng%5D.pdf

I did an opinion on it for a solicitor years ago, I am aware that opinion has been used on a number of occasions to get costs, in the Circuit Court.

Just found this http://thecircuitbrief.blogspot.ie/2012/02/legal-update-costs-criminal-prosecution.html?m=1

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I did an opinion on it for a solicitor years ago, I am aware that opinion has been used on a number of occasions to get costs, in the Circuit Court.

Just found this http://thecircuitbrief.blogspot.ie/2012/02/legal-update-costs-criminal-prosecution.html?m=1

Fair play, didn't know that. Well, you learn something new every day, I guess.

The_Minister

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I did an opinion on it for a solicitor years ago, I am aware that opinion has been used on a number of occasions to get costs, in the Circuit Court.

I know it's irrational, but I always have a mix of pride and annoyance when that happens - pride that it stands up...annoyance that I'm not being paid again :P

Carawaystick

If a judge directed an acquittal after the prosecution rests, would that be more likely to get costs for the defendant?

Victor

Note that in criminal cases that people normally aren't found innocent (but the presumption is there).

So if the prosecution loses the case, it is merely that they haven't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. They might have proven it on the balance of probabilities.

MarkAnthony

Victor wrote: »

Note that in criminal cases that people normally aren't found innocent (but the presumption is there).

So if the prosecution loses the case, it is merely that they haven't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. They might have proven it on the balance of probabilities.

I beg to differ. Where there is an acquittal the accused is innocent.

Parties may decide to launch a civil suit but that is an entirely separate matter and should not be used as a platform for justifying non recovery of costs. There is of course a public policy argument but I think it's quite dangerous to go down the line you seem to allude to.

sparkling sea

Victor wrote: »

Note that in criminal cases that people normally aren't found innocent (but the presumption is there).

So if the prosecution loses the case, it is merely that they haven't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. They might have proven it on the balance of probabilities.

The presumption of innocence is one to the pillars in criminal law, you are presumed innocent and innocent unless you are found guilt. The Woolmington principle copperfastens this presumption.

The balance of probabilities has no place in criminal law !!

NUTLEY BOY

We had a discussion about recovering legal costs in criminal cases here in 2015.

This is not a tendentious "end around" of the mod's closure of the Jackson & Olding thread. In that thread I saw no apparent discussion of the actual judgement of Smyth J which would lie at the heart of the issue of recovering legal costs where the defendant has succeeded in a criminal case.

Here is a link to Smyth J's actual decision https://judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/2018-nicc-20 Just click on the link for a PDF version.

FYI also here is a link to Cooke J's decision in the Central Criminal Court on the same broad issue in DPP -v- McNicholas 2011 http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/f0912417075f6acb8025798a00534728?OpenDocument