R v Thuc Truong
[2023] EWHC 1330 (SCCO)
R v Chloe Dempster
26 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1690 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A solicitor appealed because they thought they should get paid more for a case where the client pleaded guilty. The judge said no, because even though it took a little while for the prosecution to accept the guilty pleas, there wasn't any real preparation for a trial after the initial hearing, so it wasn't a 'cracked trial' - just a guilty plea.
Key Facts
- •Ross Solicitors Ltd appealed a Legal Aid Agency decision regarding a claim under the Litigator's Graduated Fees Scheme (LGFS).
- •The dispute concerned whether the fee should be based on a 'cracked trial' or a 'guilty plea'.
- •The defendant pleaded guilty to two of four counts at a pre-trial preparation hearing (PTPH).
- •The prosecution did not immediately accept the pleas, leading to a listing of both a sentencing hearing and a trial date.
- •The prosecution later accepted the pleas, and sentencing occurred.
- •The appeal was heard in the absence of the Government Legal Department due to their missed listing.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'Cracked Trial' and 'Guilty Plea' under Schedule 2, Part 6 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as amended in 2018.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Previous case law on adjournment of plea and directions hearings and their impact on cracked trial fee eligibility.
R v. Mohammed [2000] and R v. Pelepenka [2001]
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found that the facts did not meet the criteria for a 'cracked trial' fee. The prosecution's acceptance of the pleas within a reasonable timeframe after the PTPH, and the absence of active trial preparation, indicated the case should be classified as a 'guilty plea'.