R v Rimon Ali
[2024] EWHC 1699 (SCCO)
R v Martins
2 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 307 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A solicitor appealed a decision on how many pages of evidence they should be paid for. The judge agreed on some extra pages but not others, emphasizing that only important evidence that needs close looking-at counts. They didn't decide on who pays the legal fees for the appeal itself.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the assessment of prosecution evidence (PPE) pages under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Dispute over whether electronically served evidence should count towards PPE.
- •Appellant represented the defendant in a Crown Court case involving possession of explosive substances.
- •Determining Officer initially assessed PPE as 144 pages, excluding electronically served data from the defendant's phone.
- •LAA conceded and added 22 pages for a report containing a relevant poem.
- •Appellant appealed for further inclusion of electronic data (over 18,000 pages of web history).
Legal Principles
Assessment of PPE pages must consider whether electronically served material requires similar consideration to paper evidence.
Schedule 2, paragraphs 1(2) to 1(5) of the 2013 Regulations; Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045; Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP [2017] EWHC 138 (QB); Lord Chancellor v Lam and Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186; R v Jalibaghodelezhi [2014] 4 Costs LR 781; R v Lawrence [2022] EWHC 3355; R v Furniss [2015] 1 Costs LR 151; R v Sana [2016] 6 Cost LR 1143
Determining Officer/Costs Judge has discretion to include or exclude electronically served exhibits in PPE count, considering factors like importance to the case, work required, and whether it would have been printed pre-2012.
Schedule 2, paragraph 1(5) of the 2013 Regulations; Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045; Crown Court Fee Guidance (March 2017)
Material must require close consideration to be counted as PPE; cursory review doesn't qualify. Special Preparation Fee available for material not considered PPE.
Lord Chancellor v Lam and Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186; R v Lawrence [2022] EWHC 3355; Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045
Outcomes
Appeal partially successful; 22 additional PPE pages allowed.
The report containing the poem was deemed relevant and required sufficient consideration.
Appellant's request for further allowance of electronic data (web history) denied.
The court found the review of the web history was cursory and did not require the degree of consideration necessary to be counted as PPE.
No order as to costs.
The modest increase in PPE pages did not impact the appellant's payment, and the appellant lost on most of the issues raised after the initial concession.