R v Victoria Amas
[2024] EWHC 447 (SCCO)
R v Metab Islam
22 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 3008 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because they weren't paid extra for the huge amount of work preparing for a rape case with many old accusations against the defendant. The judge agreed that the case was unusually complicated because of the sheer number of accusations and how the evidence was given to the lawyer, and awarded extra pay.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against disallowance of special preparation claim under Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Case involved 1714 pages of disclosure and 47 minutes of footage in a rape case with historic allegations.
- •Complainant made 30 allegations against the defendant spanning 20 years.
- •Two-day hearing on the admissibility of complainant's character evidence.
- •Counsel claimed 64 hours 12 minutes of special preparation time.
Legal Principles
Special preparation fee payable if work substantially exceeds normal amount for similar cases due to unusual or novel legal or factual issues.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, paragraph 17(1)(a)
"For cases of the same type" requires a reasonably broad comparison.
Judicial comment on Regulation 17(1)(a)
A "very unusual or novel point of law or factual issue" means a factual issue outwith usual professional experience (R v Ward-Allen).
R v Ward-Allen [2005] Costs LR 745
Special preparation fee is payable in addition to the graduated fee.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, paragraph 17(2)
The number of pages of disclosure is not the sole criterion; the work involved in preparation is key.
Costs Judge Rowley's interpretation of Regulation 17
Outcomes
Appeal successful.
The extensive allegations (30 over 20 years) and the manner of disclosure (17 phases) constituted a very unusual factual issue justifying additional preparation time.
Additional payment of 30 hours of special preparation awarded.
Based on counsel's work log and considering the unusual nature of the case, 30 hours was deemed an appropriate allowance for additional work.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
The appeal was successful.