The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-03 00:00:00

WHO SHOULD PAY FOR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS?

In the court of Queen's Bench, judgment has been given
in the cause of •' The Justices of Lancashire c. the Lords of
tins Treasury.'

The Solicitor-I ieneral, with whom were Mr. J.
Brown, Q.C., and Mr. Archbold, showed cause on be'
half of the Lords of the Treasury against a rule that
had been obtained for a mandamus commanding them
to pay certain money for criminal prosecutions to the
Treasurer for the county of Lancaster.
After hearing the arguments, which were of con-
siderable length,
The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment,
said —This is a case in which, if we had jurisdiction to
issue a writ of mandamus, I should have no hesitation
in the world in saying the writ ought to go. Nothing
can be more anomalous or unsatisfactory than the
present system with reference to the taxation if these
bills of costs. Every one will agree that the expenses
of prosecuting offenders ought to be defrayed out of
the public expenditure. It is essential to the effectual
administration of criminal justice that the expenses
of prosecutions should not fall on those who come for-
ward and complain of personal injury, and which affect
the public as well as private individuals. Experience
showed that if individuals had to prosecute
offenders they would not be effectually prosecuted. The
old system was to defray the expenses of prosecutions
oust of the county and borough funds' the costs being
taxed by the proper officers. In 18:iti that system was
partially, altered, and the costs were thrown on the
public funds. The system of taxation, which up to
that time was effective, was continued, and by the
same officers. The Lords of the Treasury had, how-
ever, thought proper to introduce this addition or
excrescence on the previous system of taxation,
namely, a review of the taxation by permits who
had no personal knowledge of the matter. No doubt
the taxation of costs ought to be rigorously looked after,
but it was a different thing to say that, instead of
taxing on the spot, where all the circumstances are
known, and where the judge could be referred to in
case of dispute, these two gentlemen, sitting iu
London by the sole authority of the Lords of the
Treasury, should reduce that taxation by striking off
what they thought tit to disallow. It was inconvenient
that inch a course should be followed, because these
gentlemen, naturally wishing to show the usefulness
of their office, would be disposed to strike If when-
ever an opportunity of doing so occurred, but could
not have the same power of coming to a right conclu-
sion as those on the spot. That being so. it is not be-
cause there is no remedy that we should exercise our
discretion and issue our prerogative writ •:f man-
damns. When the duty to be performed is by
the Crown, this Court, of course, cannot affect
to have any power to command the Crown ;
and that being so, it was out of the luestion
to suppose that we have power user the 1 ressury
acting fur the Queen. They are amenable to the
Crown, whose Eery:ults they are, and not to us an
the Court of Queen's Bench. The manaer in'which
the money is to be obtained and expended is into.
vilest hy the A; propriation Act, and I canon it say.there
is a duty incumbent on the Treasury to do what I
cannot help thinking is a duty thrown on them as
servants of the Crown. I believe they bare made a
great mistake, and that a state of things of an
anomalous character Pres ails in consequence. Under
the circumstances, however, though with regret, we
must discharge the rule.
The other learned Judges concurred.
Rule discharged.