§ 2. Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give magistrates power to award the costs of the defence against the prosecutor when an indictment is tried summarily and dismissed.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonNo, Sir. The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973 already gives magistrates' courts dealing summarily with an indictable offence power when dismissing the information to order the payment of the defendant's costs either out of central funds or by the prosecution.
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltDoes the Minister agree that the net result is that never, under any circumstances, are defendants who prove their innocence entirely reimbursed for the cost of doing so, and that therefore the costs of proving innocence are too expensive for many people? Does he not agree that there are circumstances under which people find it preferable to accept a fine for an offence of which they are innocent?
§ Mr. LyonThere is a good deal of confusion about this matter. If a charge is an indictable charge tried by the magistrates' court, there is power to award costs, but too rarely do defending solicitors or counsel apply for an order for the costs to be paid out of public funds or by the prosecution. In the case of an offence tried summarily there is power to order the costs to be paid in certain circumstances, but there are 1590 limitations. I should much prefer that costs could always be awarded to a successful litigant, but that would cost about £2 million a year, and in the present climate of public expenditure this is not the time to make that kind of change.