High Court Awards £750 Costs to Jake Worsley After Serious Magistrates’ Court Procedural Failure

What was the original case about?

In R (Worsley) v Tameside Magistrates’ Court: Costs [2026] EWHC 2518 (Admin), the High Court considered an application by Jake Worsley for payment of his legal costs from central funds following proceedings before Tameside Magistrates’ Court.

The underlying criminal proceedings arose from Mr Worsley’s conviction after trial on 30 May 2025 for failing to provide a specimen of blood without reasonable excuse, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Mr Worsley subsequently sought judicial review of the Magistrates’ Court’s decision of 31 July 2025 to refuse to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.

His judicial review claim was successful. By an order of Hill J dated 16 July 2026, and for the reasons given in [2026] EWHC 1789 (Admin), his conviction was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court.

Why was the case brought before the High Court?

The judicial review claim succeeded because the Magistrates’ Court had committed a serious procedural failing. The Court had convicted Mr Worsley before hearing closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defence.

Following the successful judicial review, Mr Worsley sought payment of his legal costs relating to the Magistrates’ Court hearing from central funds.

The costs application was referred to a Divisional Court in accordance with section 25.11.4 of the Administrative Court Guide 2025. The issue before the Divisional Court was whether it had the legal power to make the defendant’s costs order sought by Mr Worsley.

The Court was satisfied that it had the power to make the defendant’s costs order sought by the claimant.

What did the Divisional Court decide?

The Divisional Court, comprising Lord Justice Edis and Mrs Justice Hill DBE, considered the statutory framework governing defendant’s costs orders.

Sections 16 and 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provide for defendant’s costs orders. The Court focused particularly on section 16(5)(a), which provides for such an order where criminal proceedings are determined before a Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division.

The Court noted that there is no comparable provision where proceedings are determined by a single judge of the King’s Bench Division. This was the reason the Administrative Court Guide provides for certain costs applications to be considered on the papers by a Divisional Court.

The judges considered whether the wording of section 16(5)(a) meant that the Divisional Court could only make the order where it had itself determined the substantive merits of the criminal proceedings.

They concluded that such a narrow interpretation was not correct in the circumstances of Mr Worsley’s case.

Why did the Court have jurisdiction to make the costs order?

The Court relied on CPR r. 3.1(2)(c), which permits the High Court to order that proceedings in the High Court should be heard by a Divisional Court. The Court held that this power can be exercised at any stage during the proceedings.

The judges considered the meaning of “proceedings” and noted that, generally, proceedings are not over until the courts have disposed of the claim one way or another at the relevant level of the judicial hierarchy.

The Court also referred to the principle that proceedings generally have not concluded until all matters before the court have been concluded. The question of costs at the end of a judicial review claim was described as an inherent part of the exercise of the judicial review jurisdiction.

Although the substantive merits of Mr Worsley’s judicial review claim had already been determined, his application for a defendant’s costs order from central funds remained outstanding.

The Court therefore concluded that the proceedings had not been “determined” in their entirety for the purposes of section 16(5) of the 1985 Act. It was consequently permissible to transfer the case to the Divisional Court, which could then determine the outstanding costs application.

The Court also considered the wider statutory context. It noted that the legislation defines “proceedings” in a non-exhaustive way and that there was no reason to think Parliament intended the restrictions on costs recovery to disadvantage a claimant who had incurred costs following a serious procedural failing that could not be attributed to him.

How much was awarded?

The Court then considered the appropriate amount of the defendant’s costs order.

Under section 16(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, a defendant’s costs order is for such amount as the court considers reasonably sufficient to compensate the accused for expenses properly incurred in the proceedings.

The Court also considered section 16(6A), under which the amount may be reduced where circumstances make it inappropriate for the accused to recover the full amount.

In this case, the Court concluded that it was appropriate to make the order in relation to Mr Worsley’s legal costs of the 31 July 2025 hearing.

• Costs awarded £750 Full amount sought
• Court High Court Divisional Court
• Judgment date 5 Oct 2026

The judges considered £750 to be reasonably sufficient to compensate Mr Worsley for his legal expenses properly incurred in relation to the hearing. They described the amount as reasonable and proportionate and found no basis for reducing it under section 16(6A).

The Court also recognised that Mr Worsley would face additional costs because the quashing of his conviction meant that he may have to face a further trial.

What does the ruling mean?

The judgment provides clarification on the jurisdiction of a Divisional Court to determine defendant’s costs applications arising from criminal proceedings where the substantive judicial review proceedings have already been determined.

The Court’s reasoning confirms that the word “proceedings” cannot necessarily be treated as concluded immediately after the substantive merits have been decided. Outstanding costs issues can form part of the proceedings for the purposes of section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The decision is also significant because the Court expressly recognised the potential disadvantage that could arise if a claimant who had incurred costs as a result of a serious procedural failing had no route to seek a defendant’s costs order from central funds.

In Mr Worsley’s case, the Court found that the procedural failing was not attributable to him and that the costs related to the Magistrates’ Court hearing were properly recoverable.

The final order therefore provides £750 from central funds to reflect Mr Worsley’s legal costs of the relevant Magistrates’ Court hearing.