Eight waste collection operators and individuals acquitted of competition-law charges were awarded the costs of their defence by the Central Criminal Court.
In a judgment delivered on 12 March 2010, Justice William McKechnie ruled on a costs application following the applicants’ unanimous acquittal by a jury on all 20 counts. The trial took place in Galway over eight days, from 23 June to 2 July 2009.
The prosecution had alleged that three companies entered into agreements to prevent, restrict or distort competition in domestic waste collection in County Mayo by sharing markets or customers. Several company directors were accused of authorising or consenting to those agreements. Padraig Hughes was accused of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the companies to enter them. The charges arose from a Mayo County Council tender for its waste collection business and related customer databases. These were allegations; the jury found all applicants not guilty.
The court first confirmed it had jurisdiction to award costs in criminal proceedings tried on indictment in the Central Criminal Court. It then considered how to exercise that discretion. Although the rules’ presumptions that costs follow the event in certain civil proceedings did not apply to criminal cases, McKechnie said the acquittal was the most significant factor. The starting point, he held, was that acquitted applicants should receive their costs unless substantial grounds justified a different result.
The prosecution argued there had been no misconduct and that its principal witness had failed to support its case. The judge found no basis to suggest the witness had been dishonest or deliberately withheld evidence. He also rejected the argument that the prosecution’s unsuccessful opposition to an application for acquittal by direction, or the jury’s roughly 50-minute deliberation, should determine the costs issue. The court would not revisit the jury’s verdict or reassess evidence and documents that had not been used at trial.
The judge said the applicants had co-operated with the Competition Authority’s investigation, with Paul Francis Gleeson not making a formal statement, and that none gave evidence at trial. He treated the applicants’ exercise of their legal rights as no ground for blame. He concluded that the acquittal could not be attributed to wrongdoing by the applicants and found no special reason to deny costs. The court awarded them the costs incurred in and incidental to their defence in the Central Criminal Court. The order concerned defence costs; it did not alter the jury’s verdict or determine the underlying allegations anew.