In Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Wort a costs order was made against the Chief Constable following the dismissal of an application for a Sexual Risk Order. The basis of the application was communication between Mr Wort and an individual posing as a 14 year old girl who was encouraging Mr Wort to abuse a young family member, and to send her videos of that abuse. The magistrates found that Mr Wort had not in fact abused any family member and, in reliance on a psychological report which stated that there was a low risk of Mr Wort committing a sexual offence, concluded that it was unnecessary to make an order.
Mr Wort applied for his costs of the proceedings on the basis that he was self funding the litigation. The only legal advice given to the magistrates was that they should make an order that was just and reasonable in the circumstances, along with a reading of half of paragraph 97 of CMA V Flynn Pharma [2022] UKSC 14. The magistrates held that it was reasonable for the police to have brought the application to protect the public, and that the Respondent had contributed to the need for an application to be made by his conduct, but that because of Mr Wort's means it was appropriate for the Chief Constable to pay £5,654 of his costs of the application (around 60%).
At this point Daniel was instructed to consider routes of challenge to this decision. An appeal by way of case stated was pursued on the basis that the magistrates had wrongly failed to start from a presumption that there would be no order as to costs, and had wrongly departed from that starting point, having made no funding that would justify doing so.
On 12 March 2026 Mrs Justice O'Farrell DBE allowed the appeal, holding that:
- The appropriate starting point where Sexual Risk Order applications are refused is that no order as to costs should be made.
- The magistrates had failed to take that presumption as their starting point, and had failed to make any findings that would justify departing from that starting point.
- The magistrates had failed to take any account of the likely chilling effect of making a costs order in these circumstances.
Accordingly the costs order was quashed.
Daniel observes:
“This case highlights the need for police law practitioners to bring the, now substantial, case law on costs to the attention of magistrates courts when an application is dismissed, and to be robust in setting out:
- that the starting point is no order as to costs; and
- that the starting point is not to be departed from without sufficiently good reason.
The statement of the law in Malik in particular is clear, and forces should be reassured that when a magistrates court gets it wrong, an effective challenge can be mounted, as it was in this case.”
For further information, advice, or to instruct Daniel please contact the clerks on clerks@kbwchambers.com or 01132 971 200.