R v James
[2024] EWHC 1753 (SCCO)
R v Cobb
3 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1322 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed how their legal aid fees were calculated after their client pleaded guilty to drug charges. They argued that a special kind of hearing ('Newton hearing') happened because they argued about the client's role in the crime. The judge disagreed, saying it was a regular sentencing hearing, and the appeal was denied. The focus was on whether there was a real argument about important facts, not just labels.
Key Facts
- •Carson Kaye Solicitors appealed a determining officer's decision to calculate litigators' graduated fees based on a 'cracked trial' rather than a full trial under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Ian Cobb pleaded guilty to two of three counts of drug offences. The Crown dropped the third count.
- •The solicitor argued a 'Newton hearing' occurred due to the basis of plea, disputing the defendant's level of involvement.
- •The determining officer considered the hearing a sentencing hearing with pleas in mitigation, not a 'Newton hearing'.
- •The appeal considered the transcript of the hearing to determine if a 'Newton hearing' had taken place in substance.
Legal Principles
Determination of litigators' graduated fees under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Definition of a 'Newton hearing' – a hearing where there's a considerable disagreement between the prosecution and defendant on material facts, requiring the court to adopt the defendant's version where possible.
R v Robert John Newton (1983) 77 Cr App Rep 13
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge found the hearing was substantively a sentencing hearing with mitigation, not a 'Newton hearing', as the disputed facts were not material to sentencing. The basis of plea aimed to lessen the defendant's culpability, a standard aspect of mitigation, not a factual dispute requiring a 'Newton hearing'.