header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 May 2018 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Unsatisfactory & unfair?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7794_samuels

Defendants’ costs orders: the principles, by Alec Samuels

The defendant was acquitted. He was ineligible for legal aid. His costs were considerable. He applies for a defendant’s costs order (DCO) from central funds (not the Crown Prosecution Service or the police). The matter lies within the discretion of the judge. We live in an age of austerity. If costs are awarded they are capped at legal aid rates. Factors the judge may take into account include the importance of the charge, whether the defendant brought suspicion on himself, whether he misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against him was stronger than it really was, or whether he withheld relevant information. Would an order be appropriate, reasonable and just? The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, as amended, ss 16 and 16A, as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), s 62 and sch 7. R (Henderson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 130 (Admin), [2015] 1 Cr App

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll