Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Kapoor

[2024] EWHC 1316 (SCCO)
A lawyer appealed a fee decision because he believed his client's charge of conspiracy to rob should be classified as 'armed robbery' for higher payment. The judge disagreed, stating there wasn't enough proof the robbery involved weapons as defined by law, dismissing the appeal.

Key Facts

  • Jasvin Kapoor was charged with conspiracy to rob.
  • The appeal concerns the appropriate classification of the offence under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 for fee calculation.
  • The offence involved a series of robberies where force, threatened violence, and actual violence were used; some victims suspected weapons, but none were produced except implied presence in two instances.
  • The defendant's involvement was limited to one robbery with minimal violence and no weapons.
  • The prosecution's case alleged a conspiracy to use offensive weapons during some robberies, but this wasn't supported by evidence.

Legal Principles

Classification of offences under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 depends on the AGFS Banding Document, considering the facts of the case and the statutory definition of 'armed robbery'.

Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraphs 1(7), 1(8), and 3; AGFS Banding Document, Tables A and B.

The statutory definition of 'armed robbery' (Serious Crime Act 2007, Schedule 1, paragraph 5) limits 'offensive weapons' to those defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.

Serious Crime Act 2007, Schedule 1, paragraph 5; Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 141; Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.

Prior case law (R v Stables, R v Kendrick) interpreted 'armed robbery' differently depending on the existence of a statutory definition and the nature of the weapon possession. In R v Kendrick, the Senior Costs Judge found that robbery with a weapon not defined under the 1988 Act is not armed robbery.

R v Stables [2000] 1 WLUK 6; R v Kendrick (SCCO 259/10, 5th January 2011).

Outcomes

The appeal was dismissed.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's claim that the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The prosecution's allegation regarding weapon use wasn't substantiated by evidence, and the statutory definition of armed robbery wasn't met.

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.