R v Munemo
[2023] EWHC 1636 (SCCO)
R v Hussain
4 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3126 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers argued about how many pages of evidence should be counted to determine their legal aid payment. A judge decided most of the photos from a phone weren't crucial to the case, so only a small number of pages were counted for payment.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning payment to defence solicitors under the Litigators' Graduated Fee Scheme (Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013).
- •Dispute over the number of pages of Prosecution Evidence (PPE) to be included in the fee calculation.
- •Case involved a defendant acquitted of murder but convicted of conspiracy to commit GBH.
- •Key evidence included electronic data from mobile phones (Snapchat communications, bitmojis, deleted data, VPN usage).
- •Determining Officer allowed 6835 pages of PPE, including 4709 pages of electronic evidence.
- •Appellant argued for a higher PPE count, specifically concerning the inclusion of images (6000 pages).
Legal Principles
Served electronic evidence that never existed in paper form may be excluded from the PPE count if the Determining Officer deems it appropriate (important control mechanism to prevent inappropriate expenditure of public funds).
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Key criterion for inclusion: whether the evidence was of central importance to the trial (not merely helpful or important to the defence).
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
If prosecution relies on part of electronic data, consider whether all data should be included; depends on circumstances and whether exhibited data can only be fairly considered in light of totality of data.
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Electronically served evidence should be treated as PPE if it requires similar degree of consideration to paper evidence.
R v Jalibaghodelehzi [2014] 4 Costs L 781
Where key prosecution evidence is extracted from a category of electronic data, the starting point is that all evidence in that category should be included.
Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB)
A 'rough and ready analysis' or 'sensible approximation' is acceptable when assessing electronic material; consider proportion of pages to count as PPE.
The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Determining Officer's allowance of 5% of the image data was reasonable and consistent with precedent. The court found the appellant's attempt to distinguish this case from R v Sereika unpersuasive.