1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Two recent cases starkly illustrate the issues. In one, a
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
driver appealed to the Crown Court to reduce a fine (which it did from £500 to C30) and awarded him costs — under the new rules the driver could only recoup a small amount of his costs and would have less incentive to bring the appeal in a case in which he had been clearly wronged in the magistrates' court by a wholly reasonable penalty.
In another case, an insecure load, an operator was prosecuted when a manufacturing defect caused part of a load to fall from its vehicle when it had done all that was reasonably necessary to secure the load — the prosecution was persuaded to drop the case, which had been poorly investigated by the police, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. Under the new costs proposals, the lion's share of the costs would still have to be met by the operator (and driver, also prosecuted) even though the case against them had little foundation. In short, a defendant will pay for acquittal, for the most part. Fortunately for this operator, the case was placed before 31 October allowing the court to award the company its full costs.