Last week former cabinet minister
Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce were ordered to pay significant sums
towards the costs of their prosecutions. What is the law on paying prosecution
costs?
Huhne and Pryce
Huhne and Pryce were both sentenced
to eight months’ imprisonment in March 2013 for perverting the course of
justice. Pryce had accepted Huhne’s driving licence penalty points for speeding
so that he could avoid a driving ban. For more information, see this article.
The prosecution made an
application for Huhne to pay towards the costs of his prosecution in the sum of
£108,541.15. This included £31,000 in
relation to Operation Solar. Operation Solar concerned the part of the
investigation considering the behaviour of barrister Constance Briscoe, who had
given witness statements in support of Pryce’s assertion that Huhne had made
her accept his penalty points. The prosecution later decided not to rely on Ms
Briscoe’s evidence, after it became clear that it was untrue in a number of
respects. Briscoe was found guilty of perverting the course of justice and
sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment earlier this month for her deceit.
The prosecution also made an
application for Pryce to pay towards the costs of her prosecution in the sum of
£48,695.56.
In addition, a further £1,950 was
sought by the prosecution for the costs of the sentencing hearing and the
hearing to determine costs. This sum was to be apportioned between Huhne and
Pryce.
Neither Huhne nor Pryce objected
in principle to the making of a costs order against them. However, Huhne objected to paying the costs towards Operation Solar. It was argued
on his behalf that the criminality or otherwise of Briscoe’s conduct required
investigation once her true involvement became clear. Therefore Huhne should
not have to pay for an investigation that would have occurred in any event.
Further, it was argued that the prosecution barristers’ fees were unreasonable.
Mr Justice Sweeney held it would
not be just or reasonable to require Huhne to pay the Operation Solar costs. However,
the barristers’ fees were reasonable. It was held the just and reasonable costs
for Huhne to pay was the sum of £76,000 plus £1,750 to reflect a fair
apportionment of the costs for the sentencing and costs hearings. Therefore the
total to be paid by Huhne was £77,750.
As for Pryce it was held the just
and reasonable costs for her to pay was the sum of £48,000 plus £1,200 towards
the sentencing and costs hearings. The total was therefore £49,200.
What is the law on prosecution
costs?
Prosecution Costs
Section 18 of the
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides that when a defendant is
convicted or unsuccessful in an appeal the court may order the individual to
pay the prosecutor’s costs.
As to the amount to be paid,
section 18 only permits payment of an amount that the court considers ‘just and
reasonable’ (hence Mr Justice Sweeney’s reference to what was just and
reasonable). Further, section 18 requires the amount to be paid to be
specified.
When will a prosecution costs
order be made? Paragraph
3.4 of the Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings:
Costs) (2010) states that an
order should be made under section 18 when the court is satisfied that the
offender or appellant has the means and ability to pay. That is to say a costs
order will not be made if the offender is unable to pay. It was generally
thought that the amount of costs ordered should not exceed an amount which an offender could reasonably pay within a year; however, that may no longer be
correct.
The position in respect of young
offenders (those under 18) is similar to adults; they can be ordered to pay
costs on conviction. However, there are some differences. Firstly, where a
young offender is convicted in a magistrates’ court, the amount of any costs
they are ordered to pay cannot exceed the amount of any fine imposed on them. Secondly,
under section
137 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the parent or guardian
of the young offender will be ordered
to pay the costs for the young offender, unless it would be unreasonable to
make an order for payment. But where the young offender has attained the age of
16 the court may order the parent or
guardian to pay: section 137(3) of the 2000 Act. Therefore for those under 16
the parent or guardian will always be required to pay unless it is
unreasonable, but may be ordered to pay where the young offender had reached 16.
Conclusion
It is often forgotten that
offenders will not merely be sentenced but will often be expected to contribute
towards the costs of their own prosecution, especially in the magistrates’
courts. In those cases where the defendant is wealthy, these costs can be very
high, as Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce have discovered.
