R v Emeh
[2023] EWHC 1694 (SCCO)
Arora Lodhi Heath Solicitors v The Lord Chancellor
17 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 103 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because the Legal Aid Agency didn't pay for all the work done on a domestic abuse case. The Agency said some evidence (WhatsApp messages) wasn't used, but the judge said it was vital and should be paid for. The judge also decided what type of crime it was, which affected the payment. The lawyer won and got their costs paid.
Key Facts
- •Defendant arrested for alleged domestic abuse (psychological, physical, emotional) over 34 months.
- •Original indictment: 3 counts (controlling/coercive behaviour, 2 counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm).
- •Defendant's phone seized; WhatsApp messages (Exhibit DJH/02, 2564 pages) extracted as evidence.
- •Negotiated guilty pleas to assault charges; count 1 (controlling/coercive behaviour) dropped.
- •Dispute over whether WhatsApp messages (Exhibit DJH/02) should be considered 'Preparatory work' or 'unused material' for legal aid purposes.
- •Dispute over the classification of the offence for remuneration purposes.
Legal Principles
Evidence exhibited to a witness statement and specifically referenced therein is considered used, even without formal service.
Section 9.7, Criminal Justice Act 1967
Defence lawyers have a duty to examine evidence served to test its veracity, assess context, and check accuracy.
R v Hayes [2017] EWHC 138 QB (paragraph 24)
Defence lawyers' role extends to checking surrounding material to ensure a fair summary of evidence, even if not formally served.
Lord Chancellor v SVS [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB) (paragraphs 40, 44, 50(viii))
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as amended, govern remuneration for legal aid.
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
Exhibit DJH/02 (2564 pages of WhatsApp messages) is considered 'Preparatory work'.
The prosecution relied on the messages; PC Hicks' witness statement explicitly referenced specific pages as relevant to the investigation and charges. The messages were central to the case, even if initially mis-categorized.
Offence classification falls under Table B.
The nature of the threats and the complainant's fear align with the harm described in Table B, category 3.
Appellant awarded £500 plus appeal fee for costs.
The appeal was successful.