Background
Jake Worsley was convicted in Tameside Magistrates’ Court on 30 May 2025 of failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of blood, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Magistrates’ Court subsequently refused to state a case for the High Court’s opinion.
Worsley successfully challenged that refusal by judicial review. In an earlier judgment, Hill J held that the Magistrates’ Court had committed a serious procedural error by convicting him before hearing closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defence. His conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Magistrates’ Court, where he could face a fresh trial. He then sought £750 from central funds for the legal costs of the Magistrates’ Court hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a defendant’s costs order under section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, even though a single High Court judge had decided the substantive judicial-review claim. The outstanding costs application remained part of the proceedings, and CPR 3.1(2)(c) permitted those proceedings to be transferred to a Divisional Court, which could determine that application for purposes of section 16(5)(a).
The court rejected the suggested alternative of remitting the costs application to the Magistrates’ Court because none of the circumstances authorising that court to make a defendant’s costs order under section 16(1) applied. On the merits, the court awarded the full £750 requested, finding it reasonable and proportionate compensation for legal expenses properly incurred at the 30 May 2025 hearing. The serious procedural failure was not attributable to Worsley, and the remittal exposed him to additional costs from a possible retrial.
Key Takeaways
- A costs issue may remain part of judicial-review proceedings after the substantive claim has been decided.
- Such outstanding proceedings may be transferred to a Divisional Court under CPR 3.1(2)(c), enabling that court to exercise the power in section 16(5)(a) of the 1985 Act.
- Worsley received a defendant’s costs order of £750 from central funds for his legal costs in the Magistrates’ Court.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms the jurisdictional basis for the Administrative Court Guide’s procedure when a claimant who succeeded before a single judge seeks criminal legal costs from central funds. It avoids placing such a claimant at a disadvantage merely because the judicial-review merits were determined by one judge rather than by a Divisional Court.
It also distinguishes between the limited statutory power of a Magistrates’ Court to award defence costs and the Divisional Court’s power where judicial-review proceedings concerning a criminal matter remain unresolved as to costs.