R v Daljit Singh Pamma
[2024] EWHC 509 (SCCO)
R v Chukwuka
7 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3156 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed the payment for work done on a complex money laundering case. The lower court didn't fully appreciate the importance of a junior lawyer's work in analyzing mountains of evidence. The higher court agreed the work was crucial and awarded much more money, finding it shouldn't matter that a junior lawyer did the analysis.
Key Facts
- •Imran Khan & Partners appealed a Determining Officer's decision regarding payment for work in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- •The appeal concerned enhanced payment rates and the reasonable amount of time spent reviewing documentary evidence (approx. 15,000 pages).
- •The case involved a complex international fraud and money laundering operation, with the original trial lasting six months.
- •A trainee solicitor spent 292 hours reviewing evidence from the original trial.
- •The Determining Officer allowed 120 hours at prescribed rates, refusing enhancement, citing the work as 'scheduling' and not significantly impacting the case's complexity.
Legal Principles
Regulations 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 governs payment for work in confiscation proceedings, allowing for enhanced rates based on exceptional competence, skill, expertise, despatch, complexity, or other exceptional circumstances.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, paragraphs 26-29
Enhanced rates are permissible even if the work is delegated to a junior fee earner; the criteria for enhancement do not vary according to the grade of fee earner.
R v Chukwuka [2023] EWHC 3156 (SCCO)
In assessing reasonable time, the court considers whether the work undertaken was integral to the success of the case. Mere 'scheduling' of documents is not sufficient to justify enhanced rates, unlike a detailed analysis of evidence crucial to the case outcome.
R v Onwu [2022] EWHC 1778 (SCCO) and R v Chukwuka [2023] EWHC 3156 (SCCO)
R v Ahmad and another [2014] UKSC 36: Guidance on joint benefit findings in confiscation proceedings.
R v Ahmad and another [2014] UKSC 36
Outcomes
Appeal successful.
The Determining Officer's decision insufficiently valued the importance of the trainee solicitor's evidence analysis, which was crucial in reducing the benefit figure significantly. The work was not mere scheduling but involved complex analysis of a large dataset, justifying a 100% enhancement.
292 hours of work allowed at enhanced rates (100%).
The claimed time was reasonable given the volume and complexity of the evidence reviewed and its critical role in achieving a favorable outcome for the defendant. The case is distinguished from R v Onwu due to the direct relevance of the reviewed evidence to the confiscation proceedings.