R v Curtis Howarth
[2024] EWHC 310 (SCCO)
R v Charlie Gorge
1 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2187 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Two lawyers appealed because the government wouldn't pay them for a trial that was stopped and restarted. A judge agreed that it was really two trials, and the lawyers should be paid for both.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Jonathan Higgs KC and Mr. Mark Dacey (Appellants) appealed decisions of the Legal Aid Agency (Respondent) regarding Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) claims.
- •The appeals concerned whether claims should be paid for a trial and a new trial or just a single trial.
- •Appellants represented Mr. Charlie George in a trial involving multiple murder, attempted murder, and other charges.
- •The initial trial was discharged after four days due to a juror issue; a new trial commenced after a delay.
- •The Respondent assessed the claims as a single trial, while the Appellants argued for separate trial and new trial payments.
- •The case involved interpretation of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, specifically paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'retrial' as a new trial not part of the same procedural and temporal matrix as the first trial. Requires a court order, not necessarily written.
R v. Forsyth [2010]
Interpretation of paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the 2013 Regulations regarding retrials and transfers; payment for a retrial is limited.
R v. Tabassum Mohammed [2020]
Introduction of new evidence does not automatically alter the procedural and temporal matrix.
R v. Nettleton [2014]
Guidance on the relevance of trial judge comments in criminal costs appeals.
R v. Bernard-Sewell [2021]
Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the 2013 Regulations applies to cases where the same advocate appears in both trials, regardless of the time gap or other factors mentioned by the Respondent.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraph 2(2)
Outcomes
Appeals allowed.
The court found that the judge's declaration of the initial trial as 'ineffective' and the subsequent order for a new trial created a break in the procedural and temporal matrix, justifying separate payments for the trial and the new trial.
AGFS claims to be reassessed as a trial and a new trial.
The court determined that the events constituted a trial followed by a new trial, not a single continuous trial.
£200 (the £100 appeal fee x 2) to be returned to the Appellants.
Costs associated with lodging the appeals.