R v Emily Ellwood
[2023] EWCA Crim 1114
RAI v Guildford Magistrates Court & Anor
5 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2801 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to pay large fines for fraud. The High Court said the judge didn't properly check if the man could afford the fines and didn't set a fair payment plan. The case was sent back to be decided again.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by way of case stated against Guildford Magistrates' Court decision ordering £22,000 compensation and £6,067.88 prosecution costs for fraud.
- •Applicant pleaded guilty to fraud, failing to disclose income information to obtain housing benefit and council tax reduction.
- •Magistrates' court imposed six-month suspended sentence, unpaid work, compensation, costs, and a nil surcharge.
- •Magistrates conceded error in reducing surcharge to nil, stating applicant had means to pay compensation and costs.
- •Applicant's monthly income after tax: £2250; disposable income before loan repayments: £250 (applicant's claim).
Legal Principles
Appeal by case stated is limited to whether the Magistrates' decision was wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.
s.111(1) Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
Costs order must be ‘just and reasonable’ and not exceed the defendant's ability to pay, considering other financial orders.
Section 18 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985; R v Northallerton Magistrates Court ex p Dove [2000] 1 Crim App R (S)
When considering compensation, surcharge, and costs orders, priority is compensation, then surcharge, then costs if insufficient means.
Sentencing Council’s explanatory materials on prosecution costs
Court must have regard to offender's means when making compensation orders; order must specify amount and be appropriate, not oppressive.
Section 135 Sentencing Act 2020; R v Ganyo [2011] EWCA Crim 2491
Compensation orders should normally be payable within 12 months, up to 3 years in exceptional circumstances.
Sentencing Council guidance; R v Yehou [1997] 2 Cr App R(S); R v Oliver (1989) 11 Cr App R(S) 10
It is unlawful to fix compensation without considering payable installments and repayment period; this cannot be delegated to fines officer.
Archbold (2025) 5A-462; R v Margaret York [2018] EWCA Crim 2754
Outcomes
Magistrates' order for compensation and costs quashed.
Magistrates failed to make clear findings about applicant's means, didn't consider repayment period, imposed unlawful costs order and delegated key decisions to fines office.
Remittal for redetermination by a differently constituted bench.
To ensure compliance with the legal principles outlined in the judgment regarding compensation, costs and surcharge orders.