Am I the only one here who thinks this is very wrong?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/uk-britain-hacking-brooks-idUKKCN0I41DY20141015

No conviction ought mean no costs in my opinion, otherwise the authorities can simply prosecute you in order to financially ruin you.

It doesn't seem fair for him to pay ALL of it but he did actually run up the cost and length of the court case by hiding stuff-which the police found. And , do you really believe he hid it because he was writing a book which he didn't want anyone else to see.
I thought that a lame excuse.Perhaps I have missed something though.
I do not think 'no conviction'means he was totally innocent,
just that some things weren't proven.

I totally agree, rather like those that are termed first time offenders. Too often it will be the first time they have actually been caught rather than the first time they have committed an offence.

The term 'no conviction' doesn't mean innocent, but it does mean that the prosecution failed to prove their case. Surely it is a basic point of law (like innocent until proven guilty) that in the event your accuser fails to prove his case, he should pay all costs?

I heavily suspect that he will appeal against this ruling.