Costs of criminal appeal to Privy Council - claim by successful appellant - Board's practice to award costs against Crown where appropriate

Benedetto v The Queen (No 2); Labrador v The Queen (No 2): PC (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): 20 October 2003

The two appellants successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against decisions of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

Following its main judgment [2003] 1 WLR 1545, the Privy Council board considered applications by both appellants for costs against the Crown.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, Paul Bowen and Hayden St Clair-Douglas (of the British Virgin Islands Bar) (instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton) for Labrador.

John Perry QC (instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon) for Benedetto.

James Dingemans QC, Terrence F Williams, Principal Crown Counsel and David A Abednego, Crown Counsel (both of the British Virgin Islands Bar) (instructed by Charles Russell) for the Crown.

Held, awarding costs before the board but not below, that statements made in earlier cases to the effect that the board would only award costs to a successful criminal appellant in wholly exceptional circumstances should no longer be taken as accurate; that the board's current practice was to award costs in the exercise of its discretion in any case, including a criminal appeal, where it considered it appropriate to do so; that the award of costs in the courts below as well as before the board would be decided in the light of local statutes and of practice in the local courts; and that, having regard local law and practice in the Virgin Islands, the applications for costs below would be refused but, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to order the Crown to pay the costs of both appellants' appeals to the board.

(WLR)