A man acquitted of firearms charges is trying to make the Crown foot his legal bills in an unprecedented move.

Khyri Smith-Williams, 19, was last week cleared by a jury of bringing a firearm to a party at the Royal Artillery Association club in St. George's.

British Queen Counsel Jerome Lynch, representing Mr. Smith-Williams, said the bills are a burden on his client's family, but Crown counsel Robert Welling said that the Supreme Court does not have the power to issue costs in criminal matters.

He added that if Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled otherwise, it could have major ramifications in how the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) handled cases, forcing them to try and seek their costs from those prosecuted.

Following Mr. Smith-Williams' acquittal, Mr. Lynch told The Royal Gazette that his client was denied legal aid to hire a Queen's Counsel, so his family risked footing the "substantial" bill.

The Royal Gazette understands that costs for a QC are in the region of $450 to $500 per hour, if not funded by legal aid.

Mr. Smith-William's trial lasted two weeks and two days.

While the Supreme Court can issue costs in civil cases, or in matters that appear on appeal from Magistrates' Court, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Welling disagreed as to if the Supreme Court could issue costs on criminal matters.

In a hearing yesterday, Mr. Lynch argued that in civil cases, both parties have the option of dealing with matters out of court.

Because Mr. Smith-Williams had been charged with an indictable-only offence, the only option he had to reduce court costs was to plead guilty.

"It's not the case that this defendant has done anything to bring this case on himself other than plead his innocence," he said.

While Mr. Welling said that no defence attorney to his knowledge had made application for costs in such a case, Mr. Lynch said: "It's neither here nor there.

"If no one has made this application before, so what? This defendant's family has spent great costs defending their son."

Mr. Lynch called for costs to be awarded to his client, saying: "To the court, they are costs. For the family of the defendant, they are a burden, a fine."

He told Mrs. Justice Simmons that the DPP dragged out proceedings, saying that they had only received several transcripts after the trail was underway.

"This was not some esoteric information, this is basic disclosure material," he said.

Mr. Welling argued that the reason no other defence attorney had made such an application is that it was not in the Supreme Court's power to assign costs in such matters.

"This rule has been in existence for a long time, and Bermuda is blessed with a very experienced defence bar," he said. "This court does not have this power.

"To say that it clearly states otherwise is patently incorrect."

Regarding delays caused by a lack of disclosure, Mr. Welling said: "I do not seek to defend any lack of disclosure, but the lateness delayed the trial by no more than three hours and 15 minutes, which happened on the second day."

He also added that if the Supreme Court decided that it could issue costs in criminal matters, then the DPP would likely have to themselves seek costs.

"This does have far reaching consequences as to how the prosecution will respond to cases," he said.

Mrs. Justice Simmons said that she would reserve her ruling on the matter until a later date.