R v Thuc Truong
[2023] EWHC 1330 (SCCO)
R v Cameron Gatherar
10 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2928 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because he thought he should get paid more for a case that ended in guilty pleas. The judge said the rules clearly state he only gets the lower payment, even though the guilty pleas came late, because the defendant entered a plea in court before the trial was set.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Determining Officer's decision regarding remuneration under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Appellant (barrister) represented the defendant in a Crown Court case involving multiple serious charges.
- •Defendant initially pleaded not guilty at a PTPH due to needing a psychiatric assessment.
- •Guilty pleas were entered later, close to the trial date.
- •The issue was whether the case qualified for a 'cracked trial' fee or a 'guilty plea' fee under the 2013 Regulations.
- •The Determining Officer decided for 'guilty plea' fees only.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' and 'guilty plea' under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2013 Regulations.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Interpretation of 'cracked trial' limb (b): The case must be listed for trial *without* a hearing at which the assisted person enters a plea.
R v Barzey [2022] EWHC 1775 (SCCO), R v Jarir [2022] EWHC 2231 (SCCO), R v Lamin SCCO 175/19, 7 April 2020
The scheme does not permit general discretion to award fees; it is to be applied mechanistically.
Previous decisions of Costs Judges and higher courts.
Outcomes
Appeal unsuccessful.
The court found that the case did not meet the definition of a 'cracked trial' under the 2013 Regulations. A plea hearing occurred before the trial date, precluding the application of limb (b) of the 'cracked trial' definition. An earlier indication of a not guilty plea at a PTPH was not a formal plea and did not change the outcome.