R v Shehu
[2023] EWHC 3483 (SCCO)
R v James
8 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1753 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a fee decision because they thought a sentencing hearing was a 'fact-finding hearing' (Newton Hearing). The court disagreed. The hearing only decided how to describe the defendant's known actions; it didn't decide on any new facts. Therefore, the lower fee was correct.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning whether a 'Newton Hearing' (fact-finding hearing for sentencing) constituted a 'trial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Defendant pleaded guilty after initially pleading not guilty.
- •Defendant submitted a basis of plea disputed by the Crown, leading to potential Newton Hearing.
- •Defendant later withdrew the basis of plea.
- •Sentencing hearing took place where the judge decided on the defendant's role in the conspiracy (significant vs. leading role).
- •Appellant argued the sentencing hearing was a Newton Hearing, entitling them to a trial fee.
- •Determining Officer concluded it was a sentencing hearing, resulting in a cracked trial fee.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' and 'Newton Hearing' as per Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2
R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13 principles on Newton Hearings: disputed facts may be put before the jury, judge may hear evidence, or judge may hear submissions and reach conclusion.
R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13
For a Newton Hearing, a fact-finding exercise by the judge is essential, regardless of whether live evidence is heard.
R v O’Hare and Harding [2024] 1317 (SCCO), R v Shehu [2023] EWHC 3483 (SCCO)
Distinction between cases with disputed facts requiring fact-finding and cases where submissions are based on undisputed facts.
R v Shehu [2023] EWHC 3483 (SCCO)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The sentencing hearing was not a Newton Hearing because it did not involve a fact-finding exercise. The judge did not need to make a factual finding; the dispute was about the characterisation of the defendant's role (significant vs leading), not the facts of that role.