R v Samad Ali
[2024] EWHC 14 (SCCO)
R v Alli
9 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2512 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers appealed not getting paid enough for a criminal case. The judge decided the trial never really started because the guilty plea came before substantial parts of the trial began, so the lawyers only got paid for the parts completed. The judge said the amount of work done doesn't change the rules.
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.