Divisional Court confirms power to award central funds costs in Worsley v Tameside Magistrates' Court

A Divisional Court has held that it can make a defendant's costs order out of central funds where a single judge has already decided a judicial review claim arising from criminal proceedings. The ruling addresses the jurisdictional basis of long-standing guidance in the Administrative Court Guide.

In R (Worsley) v Tameside Magistrates' Court [2026] EWHC 2518 (Admin), Edis LJ and Hill J awarded the claimant £750 in respect of his legal costs. Judgement was handed down on 5 October 2026.

Jake Worsley was convicted after trial on 30 May 2025 of failing to provide a specimen of blood without reasonable excuse, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The magistrates' court refused to state a case, and he brought a claim for judicial review. In July 2026, Hill J quashed the conviction and remitted the matter, finding a serious procedural failing: the court had convicted before hearing closing arguments from both sides ([2026] EWHC 1789 (Admin)).

The costs application raised a point of statutory construction. Section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 permits a defendant's costs order where proceedings in a criminal cause or matter are "determined before a Divisional Court". There is no equivalent provision for a single judge. Section 25.11.4 of the Administrative Court Guide 2025 therefore provides that such applications are considered on the papers by a Divisional Court, comprising the single judge and a colleague.

The passage has appeared in the Guide for many years without specific judicial consideration. The judges invited submissions because, on one reading, section 16(5)(a) applies only where a Divisional Court has itself decided the merits.

Counsel for the claimant suggested that, if so, the application could be remitted to the magistrates' court with the Divisional Court sitting as that court. The judges rejected this. The power under section 16(1) arises only where an information is not proceeded with or is dismissed, or where there is no committal for trial. None of those applied, since the conviction had been quashed and Mr Worsley may face a fresh trial.

The court preferred the route advanced by the Crown Prosecution Service as interested party. First, CPR r 3.1(2)(c) allows the High Court to direct that any proceedings be heard by a Divisional Court at any stage. Second, proceedings are generally not over until the claim has been fully disposed of, as Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (No 2) [2017] UKSC 23 and Achille v Lawn Tennis Association Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1407 indicate. Third, costs are an inherent part of the judicial review jurisdiction, following Darroch v Football Association Premier League Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1220.

Because the application remained outstanding, the proceedings had not been "determined" in their entirety. Transfer to a Divisional Court was therefore permissible, and that court could determine the application for the purposes of section 16(5).

Further support came from the inclusive definition of "proceedings" in section 21(1) of the 1985 Act. The judges saw no reason to think Parliament intended to exclude a claimant whose costs arose from a procedural failing not attributable to him, particularly as such a claim would historically have been heard by a Divisional Court.

On quantum, Condition B under section 16A was satisfied because the claimant is an individual and the costs related to magistrates' court proceedings.

The court considered an order appropriate given the serious procedural failing and the additional costs of a further trial. It awarded the full £750 sought, finding the sum reasonable and proportionate, with no basis for a reduction under section 16(6A).