R v Tyrone Barton
[2024] EWHC 1328 (SCCO)
R v Adeniji
3 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1320 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers argued about whether a court hearing was a full trial ('Newton hearing') or just a sentencing after a guilty plea ('cracked trial'). The judge decided it was just sentencing, because the facts weren't disputed, only how serious the crime was. So, the lawyers lost their appeal.
Key Facts
- •Faradays Solicitors appealed a determining officer's decision to calculate the litigator's graduated fee based on a 'cracked trial' rather than a Newton hearing.
- •The case involved a three-count indictment for drug supply; the defendant initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea to guilty on one count on the trial day.
- •A dispute arose regarding the basis of plea, impacting the defendant's sentence (immediate custody vs. suspended sentence).
- •The judge recorded the hearing as a 'Newton hearing' in the Digital Case System (DCS).
- •The appellant argued the hearing was a Newton hearing because the judge determined factual issues.
- •The respondent argued it was a cracked trial followed by sentencing, citing a transcript showing the judge didn't believe a Newton hearing was necessary.
- •The judge stated there was no dispute on the underlying material, only on the conclusions drawn from it for sentencing purposes.
- •The judge ultimately sentenced the defendant based on his plea, considering the extent of dealing.
Legal Principles
A Newton hearing is held to establish facts material to sentencing; it may involve jury decision, judge's conclusion based on evidence, or judge's conclusion based on counsel submissions.
R v Newton (1983) 77 Cr.App R. 13; R v Hoda (215 of 15); Archbold Criminal Pleading and Practice
In a Newton hearing where there's a substantial conflict, the judge must favor the defendant's version.
R v Newton (1983) 77 Cr.App R. 13
Submissions on undisputed facts, concerning the defendant's role within sentencing guidelines, may constitute mitigation rather than a Newton hearing.
R v Shehu ([2023] EWHC (SCCO))
The litigator must provide compelling evidence that a hearing was treated as a Newton hearing by all parties, including the judge, or that a clear factual issue was determined before sentencing.
This case
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge did not believe a Newton hearing was necessary; the dispute concerned conclusions drawn from undisputed evidence, not the evidence itself. The hearing did not meet the threshold for a Newton hearing as it lacked a material factual dispute impacting the sentence.