Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Muse

29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1969 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed the fee they received for a case. The fee depended on whether there was a 'Newton Hearing' (a mini-trial to decide facts for sentencing). There was no actual dispute at the hearing, so the judge just sentenced the person without making a decision on any contested fact. The appeal failed because there was no 'Newton Hearing'.

Key Facts

  • Appeal concerning whether a cracked trial fee or a trial fee is due under the Graduated Fee provisions of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
  • The issue hinges on whether a "Newton Hearing" (a fact-finding hearing for sentencing) took place.
  • Defendant pleaded not guilty, served a defence statement, and subsequently entered guilty pleas.
  • A Newton hearing was listed but did not proceed due to lack of court time. At the rescheduled hearing, the defendant withdrew his basis of plea.
  • The Crown did not challenge evidence submitted by the defendant's family regarding pressure and threats, but this evidence was not presented live at the hearing.
  • The judge considered the unchallenged evidence in sentencing but did not make any factual findings based on a dispute.

Legal Principles

Definition of "cracked trial" and "Newton Hearing" as per Schedule 2, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1

Principles of R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13 regarding Newton Hearings (fact-finding hearings for sentencing). Three forms identified: jury decision, judge's decision based on evidence, judge's decision based on submissions.

R v Robert John Newton (1983) 77 Cr. App. R. 13

A concession by the Crown does not constitute a finding by the court.

This case's judgment

For a Newton hearing, a factual dispute must exist for the judge to resolve.

This case's judgment

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

No Newton hearing took place because there was no factual dispute for the judge to resolve. The judge's consideration of unchallenged evidence did not constitute a finding of disputed facts.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.