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
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll