R v Gordon Lamonby
[2024] EWHC 22 (SCCO)
R v Michael Pipe
22 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 106 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers appealed because the government said a court hearing wasn't a full trial, meaning lower payment. The judge decided it *was* a full trial because important negotiations happened, changing the case significantly, and ordered the government to pay the lawyers more.
Key Facts
- •Martyn Powel Gartside Solicitors appealed a Legal Aid Agency (LAA) decision regarding the fee for a hearing in a criminal case (R v Michael Pipe).
- •The hearing involved pre-trial negotiations resulting in a guilty plea based on a reduced factual basis.
- •The dispute centered on whether the hearing should be classified as a 'trial' or a 'cracked trial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The hearing lasted almost two days, involving substantial discussions over an 89-page prosecution document.
- •The negotiations led to a significantly reduced charge against the defendant, resulting in a lesser sentence.
Legal Principles
Whether a trial has begun is not solely determined by whether a jury has been sworn. Consideration should be given to whether substantial case management has occurred.
Lord Chancellor v. Ian Henery Solicitors Limited [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
A trial will have begun if the court is dealing with substantial matters of case management, even if a jury has not been sworn.
Lord Chancellor v. Ian Henery Solicitors Limited [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
Definition of 'cracked trial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1)(a)
Relevant case law on determining whether a trial has begun in a 'meaningful sense'.
R v. Barnes [2022] SCCO EWHC 1539 (SCCO), R v. Coles [2017] SCCO Ref: 51/16, R v. Lamonby [2024] EWHC 22 (SCCO)
Outcomes
The appeal was successful.
The hearing should be assessed as a trial, not a cracked trial, due to the substantial case management involved over two days, resulting in a significant alteration of the charges against the defendant.
Appellants awarded costs of £1000 + VAT and the £100 appeal fee.
The Appellants were successful in their appeal.