R v Arkdiusz Motyl
[2024] EWHC 2486 (SCCO)
R v Jenefer Ebosele
12 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2357 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A defendant's trial was stopped and restarted 11 months later. The lawyers argued they should be paid for two full trials, but the court ruled it was one case with a break. They only get paid for one full trial and a reduced fee for the second part.
Key Facts
- •Defendant charged with causing death by careless driving following a road traffic collision.
- •Defendant pleaded not guilty.
- •First trial commenced but was aborted due to the defendant's mental health and juror unavailability.
- •Second trial commenced 11 months later, but the defendant was deemed unfit to stand trial.
- •Second trial proceeded in the defendant's absence as a trial of issue.
- •Dispute over whether the two trials should be paid as a 'trial and new trial' or 'trial and retrial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Legal Principles
The distinction between 'trial and new trial' and 'trial and retrial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraphs 13 and 25
Relevant case law interpreting the meaning of 'new trial' and 'retrial' in the context of aborted and subsequent trials.
R v Howarth [2024] EWHC 310 (SCCO), R v George [2023] SC-2022-CRI-000166 & SC-2022-CRI-000167, R v Nettleton [2014] SCCO Ref: 58/13, R v Innes
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the two trials constituted a 'trial and retrial' rather than a 'trial and new trial' under the 2013 Regulations. The original indictment was never stayed or quashed, and the same offence was involved. Changes in venue, judge, and jury, and a change to a trial of issue, did not constitute a 'new trial'.