R v Stephen Hart & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2926 (SCCO)
R v Daljit Singh Pamma
28 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 509 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed the amount they were paid for work on a drug trafficker's case. They said they worked too long and deserved more money. The judge agreed they worked too long and reduced their hours. But the judge also gave them a slightly bigger bonus for doing a good job.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against redetermination of costs in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
- •Defendant convicted on four counts related to large-scale drug importation and supply.
- •Confiscation order of £68,120.54 made.
- •Dispute over 93.5 hours claimed for work done in confiscation proceedings, with 30 hours allowed and a 100% enhancement sought (25% allowed).
- •The appeal concerns the time spent and the rate of enhancement applied to the legal fees claimed.
- •The defendant's role in the conspiracy and the benefit he gained were disputed.
Legal Principles
Regulations governing fee enhancement in criminal legal aid.
Part 6 of Schedule 2 to The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Relevance of a defendant's role and benefit in confiscation proceedings.
R v Ahmad [2014] UKSC 36
Reasonableness of time spent in preparing for confiscation proceedings.
Regulation 26(3) of The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Guidance on time allocation for reviewing documents in criminal and civil cases.
Criminal Bills Assessment Manual and Costs Assessment Guidance for use with the 2018 Standard Civil Contracts
Test for enhancement is not solely a comparison with other complex, high value confiscation proceedings
R v Chukwuka [2023] EWHC 3156 (SCCO) and oral judgement
Outcomes
Reduced claimed time from 93.5 hours to 80 hours.
While acknowledging substantial evidence, the Judge considered an experienced defence specialist should be able to focus on relevant sections; 30 seconds per page was deemed unreasonable.
Increased enhancement from 25% to 35%.
The Judge considered the cumulative effect of factors like responsibility, care, speed, and economy of work, already recognized by the 25% enhancement. The complexity did not reach the level of exceptional circumstances justifying 100%.
Appellant's costs of £500 plus appeal fee allowed.
Standard award for successful appellant.