Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Hakim

[2023] EWHC 3129 (SCCO)
A lawyer got prior approval from the Legal Aid Agency for translation and transcription services. The agency later paid only a small part. The court ruled the lawyer should get the full amount because the agency had already approved it. They didn't challenge the approval correctly.

Key Facts

  • Stewart Begum solicitors appealed a determining officer's allowance of a disbursement claimed under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
  • The disbursement was for translation and transcription services by Mr. Akhtar Zaman for a defendant, Lokman Hakim, who did not speak English.
  • The prosecution's transcripts were questioned for accuracy, leading to a request for prior authority from the Legal Aid Agency (LAA).
  • The LAA granted £610 for transcription of 1220 minutes at £0.50/minute.
  • The determining officer allowed only £30.50, based on the recording length (61 minutes), ignoring the translation and correction time.
  • The determining officer cited discussions with the Criminal Finance Team that the prior authorization was based on recording minutes, not transcription time.

Legal Principles

Prior authorization of disbursements under regulation 13 of the 2013 Regulations prevents subsequent challenges to the propriety of the step or act, unless the litigator knew or should have known the purpose failed or became irrelevant.

Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, regulation 13 and 17

If disbursements are reasonably incurred in accordance with a prior authority, the amount cannot be challenged on a determination of fees.

Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, regulation 17(4)

Where prior authority is given, the subsequent payment of disbursements incurred in line with that authority is crucial for the system's integrity; a different part of the LAA cannot second guess that authority without specific and compelling reasons.

Case reasoning

Outcomes

The appeal was successful.

The determining officer wrongly disallowed most of the disbursement by considering only the transcription aspect and ignoring the translation, correction time, and the explicit prior authority.

The solicitors were entitled to the full disbursement (£610) plus costs and appeal fees.

The work involved both transcription and a critique of the original translation's inaccuracy, falling under regulation 13(b) and 13(c). The LAA's prior authority should be respected unless compelling reasons exist to challenge it, which were not provided.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.