Royal Court rejects pensioner’s costs claim after dropped rape case

Tuesday 10 July 2018

A 69-year-old who was accused of raping two women with learning difficulties in the 1970s - but later had the case against him dropped - has failed in a bid to recoup more than the usual amount of legal costs.

Dennis Humble was originally due to face a trial in November last year in connection with the alleged offences.

However, the charges against him were dropped in April this year after the Court refused to allow the prosecution to use a recorded interview of one of the women as evidence, because her health had deteriorated to such an extent that it affected her ability to communicate.

The ruling led the prosecution, led by Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit, to abandon their case because they felt it would be weakened too much by using the evidence of just one, rather than both, of the alleged victims.

The Court subsequently ordered that the charges be dropped against Mr Humble and that he should be reimbursed his legal costs.

But last month the pensioner applied to the Royal Court for a more generous reimbursement, arguing through Advocate Howard Sharp that he should be awarded a higher than usual level of costs over grievances with how the Prosecution conducted the case against him.

Appearing before the Deputy Bailiff, Tim Le Cocq QC, Advocate Sharp argued that the Crown should have known beforehand that there would be problems with the alleged victim’s interview due to her communication difficulties, "yet nothing was done to correct the position.” 

He also complained that there had been a “very material delay” between the first complaint being made against Mr Humble and him being formally indicted in Court.

In any case, he added that Mr Humble was a “man of good character and had always denied the charges and voluntarily attended police interviews in the United Kingdom.” 

In considering his judgement, the Deputy Bailiff recalled a “regrettable” statement made by the Crown when choosing to drop the case, in which it was argued that their decision did not mean that the allegations against Mr Humble weren’t true and that he therefore was not guilty. 

“This defendant, as any defendant, is entitled absolutely to the presumption of innocence unless and until he is found guilty following a trial. As far as the Court is aware, the defendant in this case has no previous convictions and there is no reason to suppose that he is other than a man of good character,” the Deputy Bailiff commented.

Drawing his conclusions, he acknowledged the “number of difficulties” with how the case was handled, but added that this didn’t mean, “that it was not appropriate to bring the case in the first place.”

The Deputy Bailiff continued that he did not actually have the power to grant more than the ‘standard’ legal costs reimbursement. However, he added that even if he did, he was not convinced that there was a “special or unusual feature” in Mr Humble’s case to justify awarding a more generous sum.

“Accordingly, even were I to have the jurisdiction to do so, I decline to make an order for indemnity costs in this case and make the usual order that the defendant shall have his costs,” the Deputy Bailiff concluded.