R v Arkdiusz Motyl
[2024] EWHC 2486 (SCCO)
R v Curtis Howarth
24 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 310 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed how much they'd be paid for a case. The case was interrupted, restarted months later with a different judge and new evidence. The court decided that it was actually two separate trials, and the lawyer was paid more.
Key Facts
- •JMW Solicitors appealed a Legal Aid Agency decision regarding payment for a case under the Litigator's Graduated Fees Scheme (LGFS).
- •The case involved Mr. Curtis Howarth, charged with conspiracy to defraud and money laundering.
- •The first trial began on June 29, 2022, and was discharged on June 30, 2022, due to juror scheduling conflicts.
- •A second trial began on May 8, 2023, before a different judge, resulting in Mr. Howarth's acquittal.
- •The dispute centered on whether the LGFS payment should be for one trial or two, given the time gap and changes between trials.
Legal Principles
Determining whether a case constitutes one continuous trial or two separate trials under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, Paragraph 13 ('Retrials and Transfers') and Schedule 1, Paragraph 2(2) ('Application')
Consideration of previous SCCO case law in determining the interpretation of 'retrial' and the application of the LGFS in similar circumstances.
R v. Forsyth [2010], R v. Tabassum Mohammed [2020], R v. Nettleton [2014], R v. Bernard-Sewell [2021], R v. George [2023]
Outcomes
The appeal was successful. The claim should be assessed as a trial followed by a new trial.
The significant time lapse (almost a year), change of judge, change in some advocates, change in co-defendant profile (one absconded), and considerable development of evidence established a breach of the 'temporal and procedural matrix', indicating two separate trials.
Additional payment to JMW Solicitors, including the £100 appeal fee, was ordered.
The appeal was successful.