R v Northallerton Magistrates Court, ex parte Dove (25 May 1999) Queen's Bench Divisional Court

This case concerned the situation where the costs that a defendant is ordered to pay to the prosecution are disproportionately large compared to the size of the fine imposed for the offence for which he was convicted. Christopher Dove applied for judicial review of the magistrates' court's decision that he pay £4,642.86 in costs to the prosecutor, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his conviction of an offence under Regulation 19(3) of the Arable Area Payments Regulations (SI 1996 No. 3142) and Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The magistrates had imposed a fine of £1,000, the maximum for the offence being £5,000. Mr Dove challenged the costs order on the grounds that it was disproportionate to this fine. The judge held that when deciding what costs order should be made, a number of propositions should be taken into account by the court. These propositions were as follows. (1) An order for costs should never exceed the sum which, having regard to the defendant's means, he was able to pay and which it was reasonable to order him to pay. (2) The costs order should not exceed the sum actually and reasonably incurred by the prosecutor. (3) The purpose of the costs order is to compensate the prosecutor and not to punish the defendant. (4) The costs order should not be grossly disproportionate to the fine and the fine itself should reflect the criminality of the offence committed. If when the costs order was added to the proposed fine the total exceeded the sum which the defendant could reasonably be ordered to pay, it was preferable to reduce the level of costs rather than reduce the fine. (5) The onus is on the defendant to provide information on his financial position to enable assessment of what he can reasonably afford to pay. (6) Any court should give the defendant fair opportunity to adduce any such relevant financial information. In the present case the judge stated that if a fine of £1,000 reflected the criminality of the offence committed by Mr Dove, it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the costs order was disproportionate to the fine. The judge upheld Mr Dove's application for judicial review and quashed the costs order and remitted it to the magistrates for reconsideration. (Times Law Reports, 17 June 1999)