They appealed on the basis of the Court's claim did n't have powers to make the Orders under Rule 3 Cost of Criminal Provisions of 1986 because Counselman rud was not a party on the case that the Judge had misdirected himself of saying that costs had been wasted given the work covered by regulations and that their conducts justify Orders.
They appealed on the basis that the Court had no power to make the Order under reg. 3 Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1986 because Counsel was not a party to the case; that the Judge had misdirected himself in saying that costs had been wasted given the work covered by Regulations; and that their conduct justified an Order.