R v Knobel
[2024] EWHC 20 (SCCO)
R v Miguel Lewin-Miller
18 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 664 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a decision by the Legal Aid Agency to reduce the amount paid for a train ticket. The court ruled it couldn't hear the appeal because the law doesn't allow it to deal with this type of case, so the appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Legal Aid Agency's decision to reduce payment on a rail fare disbursement (£146 reduced to £23.60).
- •Appeal concerns a claim under the Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS).
- •The dispute is over £122.40, the difference between the claimed and allowed rail fare.
- •The Representation Order was issued in July 2021, meaning the 2013 Regulations apply.
- •The appeal was initially set for an oral hearing but was decided on the papers.
Legal Principles
Right of appeal under regulation 29.1 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
The SCCO has no statutory jurisdiction under the 2013 Regulations to entertain appeals concerning advocate's disbursements.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Previous SCCO cases (R v. Humfrey [2020] and R v Stallard [2024]) established the lack of jurisdiction in similar appeals.
R v. Humfrey [2020] SCCO Ref: SC2020-CRI-000138, R v Stallard [2024] SC-2023-CRI-000095
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The SCCO lacks statutory jurisdiction to hear appeals concerning advocate's disbursements under the 2013 Regulations.