DPP v STUDMAN

HULME J : On 18 August last I, for reasons I then gave I dismissed a Notice of Motion filed by the Defendant seeking, in effect, that moneys the subject of a restraining order under the Proceeds of Crime Act (C’th) be transferred to him.

At time of delivery of my decision and Reasons Mr Studman who appeared for himself asked for the opportunity to place before me submissions on the issue of costs. I gave him that opportunity and in due course written submissions from “Randlelawyers” were received on Mr Studman’s behalf.

Those submissions drew attention to, inter alia, the discretion which exists when costs are under consideration, to the fact that due to lack of funds, Mr Studman had had to appear for himself and to the possibility that had Mr Studman had legal advice, his application might not have been pursued, certainly to the extent it was.

I have considered these and all other matters that seem to me to bear on the question but none of them provide adequate grounds for departing from the general rules not only that costs follow the event but the situation is a fortiori when it is the person who brings proceedings who is unsuccessful.

There was no improper conduct on behalf of the Respondent to the application which could form a basis for depriving it of costs.

Accordingly my order is that Mr Studman pay the costs of the Director of Public Prosecutions of and incidental to the Notice of Motion of 8 April 2005.