R v Muhibur Rahman
[2023] EWHC 3037 (SCCO)
R v Knobel
11 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 20 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a decision about how much they should be paid for legal aid work. The appeal court said the agency got the amount wrong because they missed a second case. The lawyer gets the full amount, but only the court fees for their appeal.
Key Facts
- •Sarah Vine KC appealed a decision by a determining officer to recoup a payment made under the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013).
- •The dispute arose from the application of different fee schemes (Scheme 9 vs. Scheme 12) based on the date of the representation order.
- •Ms. Vine argued that the later date (April 2021) should apply, while the determining officer used the original date (September 2014).
- •The case involved the representation of Johannes Knobel, who faced drug importation charges, and experienced delays due to absconding and ill health.
- •Two indictments were involved, listed together but not formally joined.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and its amending regulations.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013; Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Purposive approach to statutory interpretation.
Ms. Vine's argument
The significance of the section 16 determination under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in determining the applicable fee scheme.
Costs Judge Rowley's decision
Outcomes
Appeal successful, but not for the reasons argued by Ms. Vine.
The determining officer correctly applied Scheme 9, but overlooked the existence of a second indictment, which entitled Ms. Vine to a second fee under Scheme 9.
The original fee will be reinstated.
Administratively simpler than a further determination regarding the second indictment.
Costs of the appeal limited to the court fee.
Ms. Vine's success was based on an unargued point.