The Prime Minister Hon ‘Akilisi Pohiva will pay costs to the former Prime Minster Lord Tu’ivakano, HRH Princess Pilolevu Tuita and two other respondents after an unsuccessful criminal appeal, at the Nuku’alofa Supreme Court.

Mr Justice Scott in a decision on Friday, March 6 awarded costs to Lord Tu’ivakano, William Clive Edwards, Friendly Islands Satellite Communications Ltd and Princess Pilolevu Tuita.

“I can find no reason not to award the respondents their costs on this appeal and this application, to be taxed if not agreed.”

He said Pohiva had taken private criminal prosecutions against the respondents for alleged theft of money from Government at the Magistrate’s Court, on 12 February 2013.

The respondents were charged with one or more of several offences including theft, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and receiving the sum of $18.45 million pa'anga in May 2011.

The judge said in view of the seriousness of the charges, which were beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court, committal proceedings were held which resulted in the discharge of all four respondents.

Pohiva appealed to the Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed on 17 January 2014.

“After the delivery of the judgment S.J Stanton SC who acted for the respondents asked for the respondents’ costs. I referred the general rule that costs are not awarded against the Crown in criminal cases save in exceptional circumstances. However, this was an appeal from a private criminal prosecution I asked for written submissions on the issue,” he said.

The counsel filed extension written submissions followed by written submissions by the appellant.

Mr Justice Scott said in ‘Latoudis v Casey’ (1990) at the High Court of Australia, the Chief Justice said in proceedings by a private prosecutor which terminate in favour of the defendant, the private prosecutor should in ordinary circumstances be ordered to pay the costs even if he or she initiates the proceedings for a public rather than a private purpose.

“In ordinary circumstances, it would not be just or reasonable to deprive a defendant who has secured the dismissal of a criminal charge brought against him or her of an order for costs.”

The judge saw no reason not to apply this approach to the unsuccessful appeal by this private prosecutor.

The respondents were awarded their costs of the appeal.

The amount of the costs for the PM to pay will be established later this week.