Key Facts
- •Appeal concerns payment to defence solicitors under the Litigators' Graduated Fee Scheme (LGFS).
- •Calculation of graduated fee depends on the number of served Pages of Prosecution Evidence (PPE).
- •Prosecution failed to upload full case to Digital Case System as formally served evidence, despite using it in court.
- •Disputed evidence included a 21-page witness statement and associated 392-page bank statements and 1037 pages of phone data.
- •Prosecution treated the 1450 pages of evidence as 'unused material', while relying on it during the trial.
- •Determining Officer rejected the inclusion of the 1450 pages in the PPE count.
- •Appeal was unopposed by the Lord Chancellor, due to administrative problems at the Legal Aid Agency (LAA).
Legal Principles
Only served evidence and exhibits can be counted as PPE. 'Served' means 'served as part of the evidence and exhibits in the case'. Service can be informal.
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Where the prosecution relies on extracts from a larger dataset, the underlying data may need to be included in the PPE count if necessary to test the veracity of the extracted evidence and assess its context.
Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB)
The prosecution's initial view on the status of the material is important but not necessarily decisive; if the material was central to the trial, it can be included in PPE despite lack of formal service.
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Outcomes
Appeal successful.
The Determining Officer erred by failing to follow Holroyde J's guidance in SVS Solicitors and by not including the witness statement, and the bank statements and phone data (which were central to the case) in the PPE count.
PPE count increased by 1450 pages.
The 1450 pages of evidence were central to the prosecution's case despite not being formally served as such. Following Hayes and SVS Solicitors principles, their inclusion was justified.