R v Alli
[2023] EWHC 2512 (SCCO)
R v Ahmed
1 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1700 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers argued they should be paid more for a case because they had important discussions about evidence with the prosecution before their client pleaded guilty. Even though these discussions were important, the judge ruled they didn't count as the trial actually starting, so the lawyers didn't get the extra money.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning payment under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 Graduated Fee Scheme.
- •Appellant solicitors represented Javed Ahmed in a Crown Court trial.
- •Dispute over whether payment should be for a 'trial' or a 'cracked trial'.
- •Defendant pleaded guilty after discussions regarding evidence.
- •No jury was selected or sworn.
- •Discussions centered on the admissibility and strength of evidence, particularly telecommunications data.
- •Appellant argued that substantial case management occurred before a plea, triggering a 'trial' fee under the regulations.
- •The trial judge did not make a formal ruling on the evidence before the plea.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' under Schedule 2 of the 2013 Regulations.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1)
Determining whether a trial began in a 'meaningful sense' requires consideration of various factors, including whether the jury was sworn, the case opened, and evidence called; substantial case management by the court may also be relevant.
Lord Chancellor v. Henery [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB), paragraph 96
Prior case law on whether substantial case management by the parties, with the trial judge's approval, can constitute the start of a trial in a meaningful sense.
R v Coles (SCCO 51/16), R v Pipe [2024] EWHC 106 (SCCO), R v Sallah (SCCO 281/18), R v Wood (SCCO 178/15)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the discussions regarding evidence, although substantial, did not amount to a trial starting in a meaningful sense because no jury was sworn and the judge made no formal rulings on the evidence before the change of plea. The negotiations were viewed as plea bargaining rather than substantial case management by the court.