Snippet

3. Thirdly I would grant the Interested Parties’ applications for costs of the judicial review proceedings exercising the discretion pursuant to s.51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.51. There are exceptional circumstances taking this case out of the usual run of criminal causes or matters and justifying the application of the civil costs regime. I cannot accept the submission of Mr Little KC and Mr Boyd for the Claimant that there was “nothing about the present case which took it out of the run of criminal causes or matters or which meant that it was very far from being a typical claim for judicial review of a decision of the magistrates’ court”. This has been – and continues to be – treated by the Claimant as a test case. It has been approached by the Claimant as requiring significant and substantial legal resources. It raised far-reaching issues. That is reflected in the Claimant’s own position on certifying a point of law of general public importance. This case was very far from typical. Still less was it a typical appeal or challenge to a criminal conviction. The Interested Parties were acquitted. They have necessarily had to defend these judicial review proceedings brought by the prosecution. Important points of law were raised. They needed to be answered. The prosecution’s position has involved fluidity. There is force in the Interested Parties’ description of “shifting sands” which meant they were “required at each stage to meet a fresh case”.