R v John Doak
[2023] EWHC 271 (SCCO)
R v Chapel
29 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3364 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a decision about how much they should be paid for representing a client. The payment was wrongly categorized. The appeal court agreed that the lawyer should be paid more, as the original decision incorrectly interpreted legal rules about what the work was.
Key Facts
- •Forrester Solicitors appealed a determining officer's decision categorising a litigator's fee as a breach of a Crown Court order, rather than a committal for sentence under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The case involved Ian Chapel, who breached a suspended sentence order.
- •Chapel's case went to the magistrates' court, then to the Crown Court for sentencing due to the length of the sentence sought.
- •The Crown Court proceedings were complicated by Chapel's (ultimately unsuccessful) appeal against the magistrates' court decision.
- •The determining officer categorized the fee under paragraph 18 (breaches of Crown Court order) of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Regulations.
- •The appeal concerned the correct application of paragraphs 15 and 18 of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Regulations.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of paragraphs 15 and 18 of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
The appeal was successful.
The Costs Judge found that the determining officer misapplied the regulations. The case was a sentencing hearing following a committal for sentence (paragraph 15(c)), not a case solely dealt with in the Crown Court concerning a single breach of a Crown Court order (paragraph 18). The three alleged breaches also prevented paragraph 18(a) from applying. The correct fixed fee under paragraph 15 should be paid, along with appeal costs.