A renowned solicitor advocate has had his appeal against a £105,000 costs order dismissed by a judge because he applied to the wrong court.
Robin Makin was hit with the costs by a district judge in Willesden Magistrates Court for demonstrating ‘vexatiousness’ when pursuing a private prosecution against 15 West Heath Road Ltd and two of its directors for alleged offences under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Makin runs the Liverpool-based criminal defence firm Liverpool Legal, the successor to E. Rex Makin & Co., and has acted in many high-profile cases. He is best known for acting in the James Bulger murder case, representing the victim’s father. He also represented serial killer Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, and was the last person to see him before his death.
The solicitor advocate discontinued his claim against 15 West Heath Road after a judge found he had failed to disclose the fact he had brought three previous failed private prosecutions in his personal capacity.
On 19 June, District Judge McDonagh ordered Makin to pay £105,500 within three weeks. The order was made pursuant to Section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
At an appeal hearing on Friday in Harrow Crown Court, sitting at Willesden Magistrates Court, a barrister for Makin argued that the costs order was ‘grossly disproportionate’.
But Judge Alistair Wright asked Makin to show that the Crown court was the correct forum for an appeal against a costs order. Such appeals usually go to the High Court by way of judicial review.
Joshua Hitchens, for Makin, began by apologising on behalf of Makin, who, though required to attend, had been delayed.
Hitchens went on to argue it could be a ‘bad application of judicial resources’ for Makin’s appeal to have to go to the administrative court. ‘The specialist Crown court is the best place to deal with issues surrounding an assessment of costs’, he added
Hitchens asked the judge to allow the appeal and remit the matter for a detailed re-assessment.
Makin arrived in court in time to hear the barrister for the respondents, Thomas Coke-Smyth, arguing that the Crown court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
‘If the court was in any doubt whatsoever that that was the correct position, it only has to look at Blackstone or Archibold’, Coke-Smyth said. ‘It is absolutely clear that the High Court is the right one when these matters are appealed or challenged.’
The judge ruled that Makin did not have a right of appeal against the section 19 costs order made in the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. The argument advanced by Makin ‘does not… address what appears to be a deliberate decision by parliament not to allow an appeal to this court from a section 19 order made in the magistrates’ court’.
He observed that Makin was out of time to seek an appeal from the magistrates’ court. ‘It further follows that his appeal (whether against the original orders by DJ McDonagh or my ruling today, or both) would lie by judicial review to the High Court.’
