A motorist who was acquitted of driving without due care and attention has lost her appeal over costs .

Kirsten Gorry’s car had collided with another vehicle on the main road in Foxdale in September 2016.

She claimed she had applied her brake when she saw a collision was imminent but that the brake did not work and, had she not taken avoiding action, she would have been involved in a more serious incident.

The vehicle examiner examined Mrs Gorry’s car and found that there were no mechanical defects and the brakes were operating correctly.

But, before being issued with a summons accusing her of driving without due care and attention, she learned that her car had been taken by the insurer to be scrapped in the UK. Mrs Gorry sought a stay of the complaint, arguing there had been an abuse of process as the police had disposed of evidence - her car - and so her claim that the brakes had failed could not be properly examined and promoted as a defence.

That argument failed but Mrs Gorry was acquitted when the case went to trial.

Her acquittal resulted in the defence seeking costs from the prosecution.

Mrs Gorry’s advocate sought costs of £42,268. But James Robinson, for the Attorney General’s chambers, submitted that the appropriate costs which should be awarded should be no more than £14,691.

As the parties could not agree, the bill was sent to costs assessor John Kennish who concluded that costs of £22,878 should be awarded and it was this sum that the Deputy High Bailiff agreed would be ’just and reasonable’ at a costs hearing in October last year.

But lawyers for Mrs Gorry argued that the Deputy High Bailiff had erred in law and costs relating to the abuse of process should been allowed.

But Deemster Alan Gough reject the appeal.

He concluded the Deputy High Bailiff’s costs order was ’logical and fair’.

Deemster Gough said: ’The prosecution incurred costs in defending the abuse of process argument. It would have been remarkable if the prosecution was ordered to pay the costs to Mrs Gorry in the circumstances.

’In short, I am satisfied that the decision adopted by the Deputy High Bailiff after further argument was just and reasonable.’

He added: ’I treat the abuse of process argument as a matter that was properly raised and argued but that does not affect the outcome - it was not successful.

’The appellant can hardly complain that the Deputy High Bailiff allowed the expert’s costs and I do not see that such displays any inconsistency in approach.’