R (on the application of Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2010] EWCA Civ 40 (Russell Fortt appearing for Commissioner)

Mrs Perinpanathan appealed against the decision of the Divisional Court dismissing her claim for judicial review of the decision of the Magistrates’ Court not to make an order against the police for payment of her costs of successfully defending confiscation proceedings brought by the police under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the magistrates had been justified in refusing to order the police to pay the appellant’s costs. The starting point in confiscation proceedings, where the police are exercising their public duty reasonably, is that no order for costs should be made. So the position is that a successful defendant may normally not be able to recover their costs.  However, where the conduct of the police justified it the court could exercise its discretion under section 64 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980  to award the successful party all or part of his costs. City of Bradford MDC v Booth [2000] COD 338 approved and applied, per the Master of the Rolls. The effect of this decision is to deny a person in the position of Mrs Perinpanathan the costs of defending confiscation proceedings where the police fail to prove that the cash is recoverable property or intended for unlawful conduct. This being so magistrates should exercise particular care when considering whether the police have acted reasonably in bringing the proceedings.