The government has been ordered to pay the legal costs of a woman who was found not guilty at a trial last year.

Joanna Thomas, from Peel, was cleared of all eight charges after the five-week trial in November and December last year.

Six of the counts faced by Ms Thomas alleged, contrary to section 142 of the POCA 2008, that she failed to make Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to the Financial Crime Unit (FCU), as soon as was reasonably practicable, in circumstances where she either suspected or where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that specified OCRA clients were engaged in money laundering. There were two other counts which alleged a failure by her to disclose that others were engaged in terrorist financing contrary to section 14 of the Anti-Terrorism and Crime Act 2003.

The offences were alleged to have happened between 2009 and 2013. However, at her trial, she was found not guilty of three offences, while the others were dismissed by Deemster Simon Farrell, who ruled she had no case to answer.

The matter had previously been listed for trial in September 2021, however Deemster Graeme Cook wrongly ruled that Ms Thomas had been charged under the incorrect section and so dismissed all charges against her.

This was later appealed by the AG’s Chambers, which eventually led to the trial in November and December 2022.

In his ruling on costs, Deemster Farrell said ‘the prosecution were at fault for the way in which the case was prepared and then presented’ and noted that the key witness statement for the case was ‘inadequate in that it omitted a large amount of highly relevant evidence which it should have contained’.

Deemster Farrell also criticised a point made by the prosecution that Ms Thomas using her right to remain silent during her police interview could be held against her.

He said: ‘Ms Thomas was entitled to remain silent and did not mislead the prosecution in any way by taking that position at her interview. One reason that a significant part of the prosecution case became weakened was because they had failed to take a proper witness statement from Mr Sheard. This became apparent during the trial and the defence were not at fault in not seeking a dismissal of the charges at the committal or a stay in advance of the trial.’

However, he added that the defence were ‘at fault, to some extent, for acceding to the obvious error made by Deemster Cook when he entered not guilty pleas and dismissed all the charges against Ms Thomas on September 6, 2021’.

In his ruling, Deemster Farrell said: ‘In my judgement Ms Thomas is entitled to 100% of her reasonable legal costs to cover the preparation for and attendance at her trial which took place between November 7 and December 5, 2022. I do not allow costs for three advocates attending throughout the trial.

‘The case was not so complex that this was necessary. I also wish to emphasise that the amount of the costs allowed will depend on the Chief Registrar’s assessment of work actually and reasonably done and in respect of disbursements actually and reasonably incurred and in both cases the only amounts that will be allowed are those that he considers reasonably sufficient to compensate her for legal expenses properly incurred.’

He also awarded 50% of the reasonable legal costs incurred by Ms Thomas for disclosure applications made during proceedings and 50% of her reasonable costs incurred in preparing for the aborted 2021 trial, ‘given that the defence were at fault, to some degree, in permitting the Court to make an obviously erroneous legal ruling which meant that the case was adjourned for a year’.