Key Facts
- •Fahrenheit Law appealed a determining officer's decision on the number of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) allowed under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The case involved two phone downloads (556 pages each): a translated version (Exhibit 6) and an original Albanian version (Exhibit 7).
- •The determining officer allowed only the translated version, deeming the original a duplicate.
- •The appeal centered on whether the original and translated versions were duplicates or represented distinct work requiring separate remuneration.
- •The appellant argued that the translated version involved human interpretation and annotation, distinguishing it from a simple translation.
- •The appellant cited R v Brazier (1998) for the proposition that expanded transcripts should be counted separately.
Legal Principles
Under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the number of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) impacts solicitor fees.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Duplicate PPE is not remunerated twice. However, additional work such as interpretation or analysis of evidence may be separately remunerated.
Determining Officer's decision and subsequent appeal
Previous case law (e.g., R v Brazier) suggests that expanded or significantly altered versions of documents might warrant separate payment.
R v Brazier (1998), referenced in the judgment
Time spent on initial review and a subsequent check for differences between documents may be claimed as special preparation time.
R v Jalibaghodelezhi [2014] 4 Costs LR 781, referenced in the judgment
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The judge found that the original and translated versions were essentially the same, with the translations being brief and not significantly altering the content. The original added no significant utility and checking for differences could be considered as special preparation time.