DPP v McNicholas (t/a John Joe McNicholas Plant Hire) and Others
 IECCC 2
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
CC57/2010 - Cooke - CCC - 20/12/2011 - 2011 19 4642 2011 IECCC 2
COMPETITION ACT 2002 S3
COMPETITION ACT 2002 S4(1)
COMPETITION ACT 2002 S6
COMPETITION ACT 2002 S8(1)
COMPETITION ACT 2002 S8(6)
DPP, PEOPLE v BELL & ORS
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRL) 1877 S53
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S14(2)
RSC O.99 r1
RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS (COSTS) 2008 SI 12/2008
RSC O.99 r1(1)
RSC O.99 r1(2)
RSC O.99 r1(3)
RSC O.99 r1(4)
DPP v KELLY2007/19/3829 2007 IEHC 450
DPP v BOURKE WASTE REMOVAL LTD & ORS UNREP MCKECHNIE 12.3.2010 2010 IEHC 122
DUNNE v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT & ORS2007/16/3368 2007 IESC 60
SHELLY-MORRIS v BUS ATHA CLIATH (DUBLIN BUS)2002/25/6368
READE v JUDGE REILLY & DPP2009/48/12045 2009 IESC 66
COMPETITION ACT 2002 S4
Acquittal - Anti-competitive behaviour - Central Criminal Court - Jurisidiction - Award costs following acquittal - Whether acquitted persons entitled to costs - Whether the rule that costs follow event applies to acquittal - Whether acquittal confers entitlement to costs - Whether presumption against awards of costs in criminal cases - Nature of Court's discretion to award costs - Whether Court's discretion allows part-award of costs - Whether failure to investigate notes of meeting between contractors amounted to culpable investigative failure - Whether delay in court procedure relevant to award of costs - People (DPP) v Bellfollowed; DPP v Kelly approved; DPP v Bourke (Unrep, McKechnie J, 12/3/2010) considered; Dunne v Min for the Environment considered; Shelly-Morris v Bus Átha Cliath followed - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 (No 39) s 14(2) - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 99, r 1 (1), (2), (3), (4) - Application allowed in part - (2010/57CC - Cooke J - 20/12/2011)  IECCC 2
People (DPP) v McNicholas
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Cooke delivered the 20th day of December 2011
1. On the 27 th May, 2011, at the conclusion of an eight day trial, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on each of the charges preferred against the above defendants. In plain terms the first-named defendant had been charged with entering into an anti competitive agreement under s.3 of the Competition Act 2002, (as amended) by agreeing a minimum tender price to be submitted for an Iarnrod Eireann/Irish Rail tender No. 2060 contrary to s. 4(1) and s. 6 of the Act, an offence to which s. 8(1) of the Act applied. Oliver Dixon (Hedge Cutting and Plant Hire) Limited, had similarly been charged with entering into that anti competitive agreement. The second defendant, Oliver Dixon, had been charged in respect of the same agreement as a director of Oliver Dixon (Hedge Cutting and Plant Hire) Limited with having authorized or consented to that company as an undertaking entering into the anti competitive agreement in question contrary to s. 8(6) of the Act of 2002.
2. At the close of the trial, counsel for the defendants applied for an order directing that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) bear the costs of the proceedings. The application was opposed by the DPP. Following an exchange of written legal submissions, the arguments of the parties were heard by the Court on 19 th July, 2011.
3. It is now well settled that a judge of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction in the Central Criminal Court has power under O.99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, to award costs in criminal cases either to the prosecutor against the accused or in favour of an acquitted accused against the prosecutor. The route through the case law by which this conclusion has been reached has been traced in a number of judgments and notably in the learned exposé of the legislative and regulatory history in the judgment of Kenny J. in The People (AG) v. Bell, as subsequently approved by the Supreme Court on appeal in that case. The position can be summarised as follows:-
· - Prior to the enactment of the English Judicature Act of 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1887, it had been assumed or accepted that one of the incidents of the royal prerogative was that the Crown and officers prosecuting on behalf of the Crown could not be ordered to pay costs.
· - Section 53 of the Act of 1877 introduced in Ireland a rule making power which might provide that the costs of and incident to every proceeding in the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal 'shall be in the discretion of the Court'."
· - The English Act of 1873 did not contain a corresponding provision with the result that English case law in the latter half of the 19 th century became authority for the proposition that a court had no power to order costs to be paid by a person who before the Act of 1873, could not have been ordered to bear costs because the effect of the English Act was not to create any new jurisdiction in costs, but only to regulate the mode by which Courts dealt with cost.
· - Rules made in 1891 and new rules made in 1905 for this jurisdiction did not contain any provision relating to the award of costs in criminal proceedings.
· - S.14 (2) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 provided that the jurisdiction vested by that act in the courts newly established by the Constitution (including the High Court and the Central Criminal Court) was to be exercised, "so far as regards pleading, practice and procedure generally, including liability as to costs, in the manner provided by rules of court...".
· - This accordingly was the position on the coming into operation of O.99 of the new Rules of the Superior Courts adopted in 1962. Until then the High Court had no power to award cots in criminal cases because, although the rule making power for the purpose existed, no rules had been made.
· - In The People v. Bell it was it was held that O. 99, r. 1, of the 1962 Rules did not exclude the exercise of the jurisdiction as to liability to costs from application in criminal cases.
4. Accordingly, the current state of the law is that the rule presently in force, namely, rule 1 of Order 99 (as amended) applies so that "the costs of and incidental to every proceeding in the Superior Courts" include costs in criminal proceedings and these are, accordingly, "in the discretion of the Court".
5. The provisions of the current rules as most recently amended by the Rules of the Superior Courts (Costs) 2008, ( SI No. 12/2008) and so far as relevant to the present issues are as follows:-
2 "(1) The costs of and incidental to every proceeding in the Superior Courts shall be in the discretion of those Courts respectively.
(2) No party should be entitled to recover any costs of or incidental to any proceeding from any other party to such proceeding except under an order or as provided by these Rules.
(3) Subject to sub-rule (4A) the costs of every action, question or issued tried by a jury shall follow the event unless the Court, for a special cause, to be mentioned in the order, shall otherwise direct.
(4) Subject to sub rule (4A) the costs of every issue of fact or law raised upon a claim or counterclaim shall unless otherwise ordered, follow the event."
In The People v Bell it was held that sub rules 1) and 2) apply to...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL