Costs
42.Miss Perry KC submitted that if the application were refused, then the police should pay the mother’s costs.43.The mother had admitted taking the recordings, disclosed them to the police in order to seek protection for herself and her children but found herself the subject of police interview, investigation and many months awaiting a decision on charging (she says before the application was made she had not heard from the police about its investigation for six months). She thought the family proceedings had come to an end.44.Miss Perry tells me that the mother, her solicitors and Miss Perry herself all tried in vain to contact the police to discover what the police said they required, and on what legal basis, but the police refused to enter into any meaningful discussion with them, and told them that any arguments they had in opposition to the application should be made at Court.45.Miss Tinsley submitted that the police should not be liable for costs when the application was made in furtherance of the police discharging its duties to investigate crime, and had acted in good faith. 46.Despite being repeatedly asked, the police failed to provide the Respondent with the information required about the investigation and the legal basis for the application that was to be made. It was reasonable for Ms F to seek advice from her legal representatives to try and make headway. 47.The application notice gives only a thumbnail sketch of the basis for the application. The police did not provide a witness statement in support, and the officer in charge was on leave in the days leading up to the hearing, so that no discussion could take place or instructions be given. This meant that the hearing became inevitable, and this indeed was the position taken by the police in response to requests for dialogue.48.The police did not make any attempts to discover if Mr G was attending the hearing, meaning that no application for special measures was made. In the circumstances of both having no real idea on what basis the application was made, fearful of encountering Mr G directly, and understanding the focus of the police’s attention to be on seeking information in support of its criminal investigation into her alleged stalking of Mr G and computer misuse, it was reasonable for Ms F to be represented at the hearing by counsel. 49.The police have not succeeded in their application. Ms F has been put to expense unnecessarily. Her opposition to the application was reasonable in all the circumstances and she should not suffer financially as a consequence. 50.I am satisfied that the Applicant should pay the respondent mother’s costs.51.Miss Tinsley argues that the costs are ten times what the police would incur for an application of this nature, and disproportionate.52.I have had regard to the schedule of costs, which seeks only the costs of advice and representation from Miss Perry KC. Miss Perry has represented the Respondent mother at the most recent hearings before me. It is reasonable to have continuity of counsel.53.Applications for police disclosure are often determined on the papers, and by consent, and this was apparently the police’s expectation in this case. However, this is not a straightforward case with regard to facts, law, nor the need to safeguard the welfare of a victim of domestic abuse. The police overlooked these elements of its application and as a result were not properly prepared for it. The application raised issues of the utmost gravity for the respondent mother, and she should not be penalised for taking steps to ensure that she was properly prepared to defend it.54.In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the amounts sought for counsel both for advice/conference/documents and for attendance at the hearing should be awarded in full (£6,600 inclusive of VAT).55.I have not been given an explanation of the £167 Court fee so would take that out of the assessment at this time. HHJ Joanna Vincent Family Court, Oxford Draft judgment sent: 8 February 2023Judgment handed down: 17 February 2023