R v Emeh
[2023] EWHC 1694 (SCCO)
R v James Donnelly
22 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 104 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a decision about how much they should be paid for legal aid work. The disagreement was over how many pages of documents they read. The judge decided the lawyer should be paid for all the pages and also reimbursed their appeal costs.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Phil Tully (Appellant) appealed a Legal Aid Agency (Respondent) decision regarding a claim under the Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS).
- •The dispute concerned the page count of evidence (314 vs 10 pages) related to a Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 hearing.
- •The claim involved reading 314 pages of evidence connected to a s.16 statement, amounting to £786.
- •The Respondent assessed the evidence at 10 pages.
- •The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 (as amended) applied.
- •The appeal questioned whether the Respondent's actions triggered the Appellant's right to appeal under Regulation 29(1).
Legal Principles
Right to appeal under Regulation 29(1) of the 2013 Regulations is triggered when the appropriate officer provides written reasons for their decision under Regulation 28(8).
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Definition of 'evidence' under paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2013 Regulations, specifically sub-paragraph 3(a) and 3(b), concerning documents served or relied upon in Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 hearings.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraph 14(3)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court found that the Appellant's right to appeal was properly triggered despite the informal nature of the written reasons provided. The Court also held that the 304 disputed pages of evidence met the definition of 'evidence' under the Regulations, given their correlation with the s.16 statement and upload to the DCS.
Additional payment to the Appellant.
The Appellant is entitled to the return of the £100 appeal fee and an additional £500 in costs (plus VAT).