R v Taj
[2024] EWHC 2070 (SCCO)
R v Lastowski
17 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1854 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer claimed lots of time to read digital evidence in a criminal case. The judge said the lawyer should have used computer searches to be more efficient, and refused the extra payment because the claim was too high.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning a claim for payment under Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Appellant represented a defendant in a large-scale cannabis production conspiracy case.
- •Appellant claimed 613.45 hours' special preparation for reviewing 25,000 pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) exceeding the 10,000-page limit.
- •Determining Officer allowed 320 hours at a lower grade.
- •The case involved a significant amount of electronic evidence (approximately 28,000 pages), largely in PDF format.
- •Appellant argued a duty to review all evidence, regardless of relevance.
- •Determining Officer considered much of the electronic data irrelevant.
Legal Principles
Served electronic evidence is only included in the PPE count if the Determining Officer considers it appropriate, focusing on central importance to the trial (not just helpful to the defense).
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB) and The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
The duty to consider all evidence does not justify inclusion of all evidence within the PPE count.
This case
Relevance of electronic evidence can be assessed before full review; much data is obviously of little evidential value.
This case
Special preparation claims for reviewing electronic evidence are allowed even if it doesn't qualify as PPE, but may require less time than evidence that does qualify.
Schedule 2, paragraph 20 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and this case
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant's methodology for reviewing electronic evidence was inefficient; manual review was unnecessary given the availability of electronic search tools. The claimed time was unreasonable, and the grade A claim was unjustified. The number of excess PPE pages was significantly overstated.