R v Munemo
[2023] EWHC 1636 (SCCO)
R v Kola
3 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1323 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A law firm appealed a decision about how much they'd be paid for reviewing evidence in a drug case. The evidence included a phone's data. The judge ruled that the firm hadn't shown why all the phone data needed to be paid for, so the appeal failed. They could have been paid for the time spent reviewing the less important parts, but didn't claim this properly.
Key Facts
- •GSG Law Ltd appealed a determining officer's allowance of 3,141 pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) from a 5,591-page case.
- •The case involved a conspiracy to supply cocaine, with a defendant's phone (containing 5,116 pages of data) being central to the prosecution.
- •The appeal concerned the inclusion of electronic evidence as PPE under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The solicitors argued that all the phone data should be considered PPE, while the determining officer selectively included only communication aspects.
Legal Principles
Electronic evidence is only counted as PPE if it is 'sufficiently important' to the case.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1(5); Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors
There is a two-stage test for electronic evidence to be counted as PPE: (1) Evidence must be served; (2) Evidence must be sufficiently important.
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors (paragraph 50)
The onus is on the solicitors to demonstrate why all parts of an electronic download are sufficiently important to be counted as PPE.
Case law (implied from SVS Solicitors and this case)
If electronic evidence is not sufficiently important to be counted as PPE, a claim for time spent can be made under special preparation.
This case
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The solicitors failed to demonstrate why all elements of the phone download were sufficiently important to be counted as PPE. They did not adequately respond to the determining officer's reasons or provide sufficient justification for including all the data as PPE. The determining officer's approach was reasonable and in line with established case law.