Key Facts
- •Defendant charged with drug importation and fraud-related offenses.
- •Litigator submitted a fee claim for 10,000 pages of prosecution evidence (PPE), assessed and paid as 2,137 PPE, later increased to 5,279 pages.
- •Appellant appeals, claiming an additional 1,943 pages of PPE.
- •Dispute centers on whether additional pages, presented in a different format from the original electronic evidence, constitute duplicate PPE or warrant separate remuneration.
- •Appellant argues that the re-formatted evidence (printed bundles given to the jury, witnesses, and judge) was crucial for trial and shouldn't be considered mere duplication.
- •Respondent argues that PC Semple's witness statement explains the evidence organization, making identification of duplication straightforward.
Legal Principles
Determination of the number of pages of prosecution evidence served on the court.
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1
Consideration of duplication in PPE claims; balancing the need for adequate remuneration with prevention of overpayment for duplicate work.
R v Napper (SCCO Ref 160/14), R v Baptiste (SCCO Ref 189/18), R v Everett (SC-2019-CRI-000038)
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
While acknowledging the importance of the additional printed evidence, the judge found it largely represented duplication of already-remunerated electronic material due to PC Semple's explanatory witness statement.
Additional 389 pages allowed as PPE.
20% of the 1943 additional pages claimed were allowed to account for the importance of the additional printed material.
Appellant granted leave to claim for remaining 1,554 pages under special preparation.
To address the remaining pages that were considered largely duplicative.
Respondent to pay Appellant £1,000 in costs plus court fees.
Costs awarded to the appellant.