The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against costs awarded to eight respondents after their acquittals on all counts in a Central Criminal Court trial concerning alleged competition offences in domestic waste collection in Co. Mayo.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2012, the court said the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a detailed and informed way. It found no error of principle that would justify setting aside the costs orders.
The respondents were Bourke Waste Removal Limited, Stanley Bourke, McGrath Industrial Waste Limited, Patrick McGrath, Declan McGrath, Wheeley Environmental Refuse Services Limited, Paul Francis Gleeson and Padraig Hughes. The prosecution had alleged that corporate respondents agreed to share the available market and customers for domestic waste collection in the county, and that the named individuals authorised or consented to those agreements. Those were allegations at trial, where a jury acquitted all respondents.
The DPP appealed under section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 against the trial judge’s orders awarding costs to each respondent. The trial judge had made the awards in a reserved judgment dated 12 March 2010, after receiving affidavits and submissions. The appeal court stressed that costs in criminal proceedings remain a matter for judicial discretion: the rules that generally make costs follow the event in civil cases do not apply to criminal proceedings.
The appeal court said the acquittal is the starting point for considering costs and is the most important consideration, but it is not the only one. Relevant circumstances may include whether the prosecution was warranted and fairly conducted, its duration, and how the defendants met the proceedings. The court said it would not interfere with a discretionary costs decision unless it was substantially flawed or justice required the order to be set aside.
In assessing the trial judge’s decision, the appeal court noted his consideration of the evidence, the narrowed case that went to the jury after requests for directed verdicts were refused, and the respondents’ cooperation with the Competition Authority investigation. The trial judge had found that they provided requested documentation and, except for Gleeson, made formal statements. He also considered the length and expense of the proceedings and the respondents’ lack of prior convictions.
The court concluded that the DPP had not shown an error of principle. Its decision dismissed the appeal and left the trial judge’s costs awards in place. It did not determine guilt: the jury had already acquitted the respondents on all counts.