Najib And Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, July 03, 2018, [2018] EWCA Crim 1554

Resolution Date:July 03, 2018
Issuing Organization:Criminal Division
Actores:Najib And Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Crim 1554

Case No: B3 201702458

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

AN APPEAL UNDER PART 1 OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968

ON APPEAL FROM DERBY CROWN COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 03/07/2018

Before:

LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT

and

MRS JUSTICE MCGOWAN DBE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Stephen Hockman QC and Mr David Hercock (instructed by SAS Daniels LLP) for the Appellant

Mr Richard Wright QC and Mr Howard Shaw (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 9 March 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lord Justice Leggatt:

  1. For the reasons given in a judgment handed down on 26 April 2018, the court allowed the appeal in this case and quashed the appellant's conviction and sentence for an alleged offence under regulation 17(1) of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/801) of failing to give an inspector assistance required to take samples. That judgment is at [2018] EWCA 909 (Crim). The essential ground on which the conviction was quashed was that under the Regulations an inspector had no power to require the appellant to provide samples and the appellant's failure to do so therefore did not constitute an offence in law.

  2. The appellant has applied for an order that its costs of the proceedings (both in the Court of Appeal and below) be paid by the respondent. The application is made under regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, made by the Lord Chancellor under powers conferred by section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This provides that:

    ``... where at any time during criminal proceedings -

    ...

    (c) the Court of Appeal

    is satisfied that costs have been incurred in respect of the proceedings by one of the parties as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission by, or on behalf of, another party to the proceedings, the court may, after hearing the parties, order that all or part of the costs so incurred by that party shall be paid to him by the other party.''

  3. By agreement, the requirement for an oral hearing has been dispensed with in this case and the application is being determined on the basis of written submissions made by each party.

  4. In R v Cornish [2016] EWHC 779 (QB) Coulson J reviewed the authorities on the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL