Key Facts
- •Riley Hayes (Solicitors) applied for an extension of time to file an appeal against the Legal Aid Agency's (LAA) Determining Officer's decision regarding the calculation of Pages of Prosecution Evidence (PPE) under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The appeal was six months late.
- •The applicant's claim was for £89,975.11 based on a PPE count of 10,000, while the Determining Officer allowed only £3,864.24 based on a count of 240.
- •The dispute centered on the inclusion of electronic evidence (call records, cell site data, messaging) within the PPE count. The prosecution served extracts but provided the full datasets as 'unused material'.
- •The Determining Officer excluded all electronic evidence based on its classification as 'unused material'.
Legal Principles
Regulation 31 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 allows for extension of time limits 'for good reason' or in 'exceptional circumstances'. In exceptional circumstances, the court may reduce fees.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Regulation 31
The calculation of PPE includes witness statements, exhibits, and records of interviews. Electronic evidence served electronically but never in paper form is included only if the appropriate officer deems it appropriate.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1)-(5)
Guidance from *Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor* [2017] EWHC 138 (QB) and *Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors* [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB) indicates that even informally served evidence, if central to the prosecution case, can be included in the PPE count.
Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB); Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time was granted.
The court found exceptional circumstances due to the Determining Officer's exclusion of all electronic evidence, despite prosecution reliance on extracts. This was deemed inconsistent with established case law (Hayes and SVS), potentially leading to an unfair outcome for the Applicant.