Costs

Updated: 13 Sep 2021; 7 Feb 2025; 27 Feb 2026
Prosecution Guidance Court Processes and Case Management

Introduction

This guidance is divided into two parts:

Applications for costs made by the CPS against convicted defendants

An application for costs should be made against a convicted defendant unless there is good reason not to do so. In principle the costs of prosecuting a person who has committed a criminal act should be borne by that person. This means that cost of CPS staff, advocate fees, witness expenses and any other disbursement in prosecuting the case is a cost liable to be compensated.

The power to award costs is contained in section 18 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The court may order such costs as it considers just and reasonable. If the defendant has no means to pay costs whatsoever, or there is some other good reason why an order would be neither just nor reasonable, no application should be made.

Otherwise, an application for costs can be made and the court will assess whether it is just and reasonable to make it in the full amount or a contribution to prosecution costs.

The purpose of a costs order is not to punish a defendant but to enable the Court to reflect the cost to the public purse of bringing the prosecution by ordering the defendant to make a contribution towards those costs. Costs orders should not be disproportionate to a fine or other financial penalty: R v Kesteven [2012] EWCA Crim 2029.

Legal managers should be alerted to any apparent practice or policy in relation to costs awards which departs or appears to depart from awarding them where it is just and reasonable.

Where the defendant has been notified of the claim the court can award costs where there has been a written plea of guilty under section 12 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. Prosecutors should make the application to the Court. Where cases are “specified proceedings” the costs are awarded to the police and not to the CPS.  

CPS costs

It may be impractical to assess the precise costs incurred by CPS in the prosecution so the CPS Scale of Costs should be used. These relates to the prosecution of a single defendant and should be uplifted by 20% for each additional defendant. It may also be appropriate to increase the amount applied for where the case prosecuted was particularly complex, for instance due to the legal issues involved or extended preparation.

In Dickinson [2010] EWCA Crim 2143 the Court of Appeal held that a judge was entitled to rely on costs scales as a fair and reasonable guide to the costs the CPS had incurred. The court accepted that it would add substantially to CPS costs if it were required to produce itemised bills for each and every prosecution. In each case the judge and the prosecutor should be alert to the possibility that, having regard to the particular features of the case, the costs scale might not be fair and reasonable. On the particular facts an application for an amount that is less or more than that suggested by the scale of costs may be appropriate. The CPS scale of costs is available at Costs applications against convicted defendants.

Other prosecution costs

Where calculable, witness costs, expert fees, advocate fees and other specific disbursements should also be added.

Investigative costs and costs not directly incurred by the CPS

Investigative costs relate to the costs incurred of following a reasonable line of inquiry whether that points towards or away from the defendant’s guilt and the obtaining of material for the assistance of the parties or indeed the court.

In Balshaw v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWCA Crim 470 the Court of Appeal held that “to order an accused to pay costs to a prosecutor for which it is not liable is neither just nor reasonable”. Section 18 POA 1985 is a power to award costs to a prosecutor not an investigator. The Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015 at paragraph 3.7 says this: “generally it will not be just or reasonable to order a defendant to pay costs of an investigation which the prosecutor itself will not satisfy”. However, it may be just and reasonable “to make an order to the prosecutor in respect of sums which the court is satisfied are part of those costs of investigation which the prosecutor will itself satisfy” (Balshaw). The court made clear that there is no principle that prosecution costs cannot compensate a third party, whether that is the police, a regulator or another third party such as an expert. It further made clear that there is no principle that the CPS can only recover those costs which it has directly incurred.

The CPS can recover costs where it has incurred liability to pay those costs: “in such a case the court need only be satisfied that it is just and reasonable for the prosecutor to meet those fees.” On the facts of Balshaw, the police had incurred costs commissioning an accountancy report. That report was relevant not only to the investigation but also to the presentation of the case at trial. Given that fact, and that the CPS had accepted responsibility for the costs of the report obtained by the police, an order had properly been made.

Accordingly, if an investigator is to incur costs and would expect the CPS to meet them, that should be agreed in advance with the CPS. There is no prescribed basis for such an agreement other than that it is just and reasonable for the CPS to meet the cost. That is the basis on which the court must be satisfied that it is right to make an order. One example, but it is only one example, is if the cost is relevant not only to the investigation of the offence but to the presentation of the case at trial. Where the investigation relies on specialist work, including where that is undertaking by a regulator, depending on the end to which it is put, the CPS may seek to recover costs which it accepts it is liable to pay to the provider of the specialist work/regulator.

Record keeping

A detailed note of where an application was made for costs, and the sum which was sought, or the good reason why no application was made, should be clearly recorded in all magistrates’ and Crown Court cases.

Costs in Extradition Cases

Prosecutors should apply the CPS Policy on Claiming Costs in Extradition Cases when claiming costs in extradition proceedings.

Costs in Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 cases

This guidance does not apply to these costs considerations.

Non-prosecution functions

Where the CPS has a power but not a duty to conduct proceedings, it is important that the CPS agree the basis on which any costs application will be made in advance. For instance, in conducting a civil application it may be that a costs order will be sought in favour of the police but that the CPS would expect its costs in conducting the application to be met by the police.

Other costs applications which may be made by or against the CPS (“wasted costs”)

These are contained in sections 19, 19A and 19B POA 1985. Such applications may be made against a party, a legal or other representative or a third party, respectively. This is to compensate for certain acts or omissions which have given rise to costs. The acts or omissions differ between each provision. It is of critical importance that the application specifies what act or omission is alleged, how it gave rise to costs as a matter of causation and that it is therefore clear how the order is intended to compensate: it cannot be used to admonish or punish.

A legal manager should be informed of a proposed, anticipated or actual application under any of these provisions.

Applications by the CPS will be very rare and will consider the relevant considerations and authorities with care. In all cases Part 45 of the Criminal Procedure Rules must be applied.

An application might be made against the CPS as a party to proceedings for a section 19 order, or against any prosecutor employed by the CPS acting as a legal representative or representatives instructed by the CPS for a section 19A order. Consideration should be given to whether the application is being made under the correct provision i.e. whether it is a party or their representative who is at fault.

Although an order may be made where a defendant is legally aided the existence of a legal aid order is a relevant factor. Where an order is made in favour of a legally aided defendant, who will not have paid the costs, the Lord Chancellor is then entitled to recover the costs. In some cases the process may represent a poor use of resources, particularly where the amount being considered is low. If an order is made the court will have to draw it up, requiring the CPS, as a publicly funded body, to arrange payment to the defendant, only for the Lord Chancellor to later order recovery for the public purse.

Only in exceptional circumstances would the CPS look to an individual Prosecutor to reimburse the Service for costs incurred under section 19A. Any such decision will be dependent on the conduct complained of. However, where the CPS is the prosecutor and hence a party to the proceedings, costs orders against the prosecution should normally be made under section 19.

Current rates

Click below for current rates:

See Witness Expenses and Allowances for guidance on current rates for Ordinary and Professional witnesses, Expert witnesses, and Interpreters.