XN000022-1995-10-20 — Page 14

- 12-

Improvements sought for law on award of costs

A Bill seeking to set out a fair and coherent set of principles to govern the award of costs in criminal proceedings is published in the Government Gazette today (Friday).

A spokesman for the Legal Department said the Costs in Criminal Cases Bill would lead to a more efficient provision of legal services and a more effective administration of justice.

He said a working group to consider reforms was set up by the Attorney General following a proposal by the Law Society in 1991 that the present law and practice concerning the award of costs for criminal cases be reviewed.

The working group, chaired by a Deputy Crown Prosecutor, comprised representatives of the Bar Association, Law Society, Law Reform Commission, Legal Aid Department and the Secretary for the Treasury.

The main improvement proposed by the Bill now being put forward would rectify the different principles applicable in the award of costs in criminal proceedings, the spokesman said.

At present, in the Magistrates Court, costs may be awarded to the defendant if the magistrate is satisfied that the proceedings ought not to have been instituted or pursued. In the High Court and District Court, a different test applies, in that costs ought normally to be awarded to the defendant unless there are positive reasons why they should not be.

"Thus, in the Magistrates Court, an acquitted person carried the burden of demonstrating that the prosecution is at fault; in the District Court and High Court, he will normally be awarded costs, unless he is at fault or the acquittal turns on a technicality," the spokesman said.

The Bill now provides for courts at all levels to have a complete discretion on the question of costs. That discretion should normally be exercised in favour of the acquitted person unless there should be positive reasons for not so doing.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal will be empowered to award costs to a defendant where it substitutes a sentence that is substantially at variance with that passed by the court below.