R v Michael Pipe
[2024] EWHC 106 (SCCO)
R v Douglas Philip Cox
27 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 270 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers appealed how much they were paid for a drug case. A judge decided they should get more because a key part of the case happened before the trial officially started, and they should get paid for all the evidence they had to look at, but not all the extra digital information.
Key Facts
- •Burrell Jenkins Solicitors appealed decisions of the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) regarding LGFS and AGFS claims for representing Douglas Cox.
- •Cox faced charges of possessing Class A drugs; the case involved a consolidated indictment of three separate cases.
- •The key issues were whether a hearing on December 1st, 2020, should be classified as a 'trial' or 'cracked trial' and the correct PPE (prosecution pages of evidence) count.
- •The December 1st hearing involved applications to exclude evidence from Cox's mobile phones and a bad character application. Cox pleaded guilty after the judge ruled on the evidence application.
- •The LAA classified the December 1st hearing as a 'cracked trial' and assessed PPE at 553 (LGFS) and 588 (AGFS).
- •The appeal focused on the interpretation of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and relevant case law.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1)(a)
Factors determining whether a trial has begun, including consideration of case management.
Lord Chancellor v. Ian Henery Solicitors Limited [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
Determining the number of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) under the Regulations, including the treatment of electronically served evidence.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1
Guidance on PPE, focusing on the discretion in including electronically served evidence.
Lord Chancellor v. SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Outcomes
The December 1st, 2020, hearing was classified as a 'trial'.
Substantial case management occurred, including a contested application to exclude crucial evidence which influenced the defendant's plea.
The PPE count was adjusted.
All relevant electronic data should be included, and a reasonable percentage of images should be counted, while irrelevant data (web history and text) should be excluded.
The appeal was partially successful.
The appellants received a corrected PPE count and the return of appeal fees.