Key Facts
- •Graham O'Keefe (Applicant) pleaded guilty to criminal damage, other charges were left to lie on file.
- •Applicant applied under Regulation 26 for apportionment of defence costs.
- •Initial application refused, renewed application heard on written submissions only due to lack of legal aid for oral representation.
- •Applicant argued it was manifestly unreasonable to pay full costs, proposing 0%, 20%, or 25% liability.
- •Respondent (Director of Legal Aid Casework) did not appear at the hearing.
Legal Principles
Manifest unreasonableness test under Regulation 26 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Contribution Orders) Regulations 2013.
Regulation 26, Criminal Legal Aid (Contribution Orders) Regulations 2013
Interpretation of "manifestly unreasonable" – a higher threshold than mere unreasonableness, akin to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Watmore v. Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 205 (GRC); Dransfield v. Information Commissioner [2015] EWCA Civ 454; Lennox v. Iceland Foods Ltd [2022] SC EDIN 42
Defendant's costs orders under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, considering the circumstances and conduct of the parties.
Section 16, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985; Criminal Procedure Rules 45
Outcomes
Application refused (except for reimbursement of any contributions exceeding actual representation costs).
Applicant failed to demonstrate manifestly unreasonable to bear full costs. The court considered that the Applicant's situation, while having some similarities to that of a privately paying defendant applying under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, was not sufficiently compelling to meet the high threshold for a Regulation 26 order. The court also found that the Applicant's proposed apportionment methods were legally incoherent.
Director to reimburse any surplus contributions paid by the Applicant.
It would be manifestly unreasonable for the Applicant to pay more than the actual cost of his representation.