Crown Court orders private prosecutor to pay £75,000 after “improper” prosecution of SMW client

Background

At the end of 2022, Securitax Ltd, a UK-registered company, commenced a private prosecution against the CEO and Managing Director of a technology company accusing him of committing fraud in 2019.

In February 2023, our client travelled from the US to plead “not guilty” at Southwark Crown Court. The defence made clear the prospective application that the prosecution was an abuse of the court’s process at this first Crown Court hearing. Four months later, with the abuse of process hearing listed for August 2023, the private prosecutor offered no evidence having failed to comply with the court’s orders.

Unbeknownst to the Court or defence at the time, in February 2023, Securitax Ltd applied through its director - a shareholder and the main prosecution witness - to be dissolved and was dissolved in May 2023. Eighteen months later, through the same director, Securitax Ltd applied to the High Court to reinstate the company. That application was granted in April 2025 and, once discovered, we were instructed to pursue costs against the prosecutor.

Costs judgment

In July 2026, His Honour Judge Nicholas Rimmer handed down a detailed written judgment and granted our client’s costs application in full. The Court ordered Securitax Ltd to pay £74,339.04 towards our client’s legal costs and directed that a further £9,047.82 be paid from Central Funds towards our client’s expenses.

In granting our client’s costs application in full, the Court found that the prosecution had been brought and maintained primarily to exert pressure in parallel civil proceedings in the UK and the US. It also found Securitax Ltd repeatedly failed in its duties of candour and disclosure and lacked the financial ability to discharge the obligations of a private prosecutor properly: these failings rendered the prosecution unfair, its motive improper and it was an abuse of the Court’s process. Further, the dissolution and restoration of the company, only reinforced the Court’s conclusions.

The Court further concluded that Securitax Ltd’s conduct amounted to unnecessary and improper acts and omissions within the meaning of section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It found that those acts directly caused our client to incur substantial legal costs which should not fairly fall upon him.

Significantly, the Court found that the prosecution demonstrated “repeated departures from the standards expected of a private prosecutor acting as a minister of justice” and held that it was entitled to consider the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's conduct on the integrity of the proceedings.

The Court expressly accepted the defence submissions that the prosecution represented an abuse of the court's process from its inception and throughout, notwithstanding that the Court did not determine the abuse of process application because the prosecution elected to offer no evidence, thereby preventing it from being heard.

Importance of the decision

The judgment serves as an important reminder that private prosecutors are subject to the same high standards of fairness, objectivity and candour expected of public prosecutors. The Court reaffirmed that, while costs orders against prosecutors are exceptional, they will be made where unnecessary and improper conduct has caused a defendant to incur substantial legal expenses.

David Bloom instructed Amanda Pinto KC of Three Raymond Buildings in this costs application.