R v Rimon Ali
[2024] EWHC 1699 (SCCO)
R v Bowen
5 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2071 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer challenged how many pages of electronic evidence should be paid for in a criminal case. The judge decided that simply counting all the electronic pages wasn't fair because lots of it was irrelevant. Instead, the judge used his judgment to decide a fair number of pages to pay for, rejecting a strict formula proposed by the lawyer.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the assessment of prosecution evidence (PPE) pages in a criminal legal aid case.
- •Disputed material was served electronically (ePPE), primarily in PDF (A1, A3, A4) and Excel formats.
- •The case involved call data records from various phone companies, totaling a large volume of data.
- •The appellant claimed 10,000 PPE pages, while the Determining Officer allowed 7853.
- •The central issue was how to calculate ePPE pages for data served in different electronic formats, particularly large A1 and A3 sized PDF files.
- •The appellant argued for a strict 'upscaling' approach (multiplying A1 pages by 8), while the respondent (LAA) advocated for 'sensible approximation' considering relevant data.
Legal Principles
Determining the number of PPE pages for electronically served evidence involves considering the 'nature of the document and any other relevant circumstances' (Regulation 1(5) of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Regulations).
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
The assessment aims to ensure appropriate remuneration, avoiding both underpayment and overpayment. Discretion should be exercised to prevent inappropriate expenditure of public funds.
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045; Lord Chancellor v Lam and Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
Downloaded electronic material need not be treated as an integral whole; a qualitative assessment is necessary, considering relevance and the work required. Guidance from the Crown Court Fee Guidance (updated March 2017) is relevant.
Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP [2017] EWHC 138 (QB); Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045
While PDF format can provide a reasonable indication of work involved (mimicking a paper page), it's not the sole determinant. The functionality of Excel (filtering) should be considered.
R v Daugintis 154/17; R v Zigaras and R v Nikontas 155/18 197/18, 2432/18 275/18
'Sensible approximation' is permissible in assessing ePPE, particularly when dealing with irrelevant data or blank spaces.
R v Sereika (2018) SCCO Ref 168/1; Lord Chancellor v Lam and Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate the relevance of material and the necessity for close consideration, especially when electronic data contains much irrelevant information.
R v Lawrence [2022] EWHC 3355
Outcomes
The appeal was unsuccessful.
The Costs Judge rejected the appellant's rigid 'upscaling' approach, finding it risked overcompensation. A 'sensible approximation' was applied, considering the relevance of the data and the functionality of electronic tools (filtering in Excel, 'find' function in PDF).
2096 pages of ePPE were allowed for the disputed material.
This figure was proposed by the LAA and reflects a compromise between the appellant's claim and the LAA's initial assessment, balancing the need for fair remuneration with prevention of overpayment.