Richard Paul Baison [2019] EWCA Crim 1050

The appellant pleaded guilty to offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the question of costs was adjourned to await the outcome of confiscation proceedings when his financial position would be before the court.

The benefit figure was agreed at £694,481.87 but his available figure was agreed at £433,500. Half of the prosecution costs were awarded against his co-accused who had the ability to pay and were ordered against him when he was dealt with the day before the appellant. Half of the costs, £58,189 was also ordered against the appellant, seemingly by consent. His counsel on appeal said that there was never any agreement and when costs were mentioned he was taking instructions from the appellant over an issue that he then raised.

Held: the order for costs was not properly made as the appellant had no assets or income from which the order could be paid within a reasonable time, or at all. It has been made clear in relation to concessions and agreements made in confiscation proceedings that normally the court will not allow a defendant to retract his or her consent, unless it can be shown that the process as a whole was unfair. This is a rather different situation and the court was not confident that the appellant had given informed consent to the order for costs.