Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning payment under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 Graduated Fee Scheme.
- •Appellant represented the defendant in a Crown Court case involving 11 counts of fraud.
- •Trial was listed for May 12, 2021, but the defendant pleaded guilty to several counts before the trial commenced.
- •The issue was whether the appellant should receive payment for a 'trial' or a 'cracked trial' under the regulations.
- •A pre-trial discussion between counsel and the judge centered on unserved electronic evidence and the possibility of a plea bargain.
- •The defendant pleaded guilty to some counts, and the prosecution offered no evidence on others.
- •The Determining Officer ruled that the trial did not start, awarding a 'cracked trial' fee.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' and 'trial' under Schedule 2 of the 2013 Regulations.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2
Whether a trial has begun in a 'meaningful sense' is the key factor in determining fee entitlement; the conclusive factor is not whether the jury was sworn.
Lord Chancellor v. Henery [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
The 2013 Regulations must be applied mechanistically; the amount payable doesn't necessarily reflect the work done.
Lord Chancellor v. Henery [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
Each case turns on its facts when considering if substantial case management occurred before the trial began; an actual court ruling isn't always essential.
R v Coles (SCCO 51/16), R v Sallah (SCCO 281/18), R v Cox [2023] EWHC 270 (SCCO)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the trial did not begin in a 'meaningful sense' according to the principles in Lord Chancellor v. Henery. The pre-trial discussions, while involving important matters, did not constitute 'substantial case management' initiating a trial.