R v Smiley
[2023] EWHC 2185 (SCCO)
R v O'Hare & Anor
29 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1317 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Lawyers argued over whether a court discussion about the details of a drug case was a special type of hearing ('Newton Hearing'). The judge said it wasn't, so the lawyers didn't get paid as much as they hoped.
Key Facts
- •Cobleys Solicitors appealed a Determining Officer's decision to award a 'cracked trial fee' instead of a 'trial fee' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The dispute centered on whether a 'Newton Hearing' (a fact-finding hearing for sentencing) occurred.
- •Craig O'Hare and Nathan Harding faced charges of conspiracy to supply drugs. They entered not guilty pleas.
- •Pre-trial negotiations resulted in near-agreement, with a key dispute remaining regarding the quantity of drugs O'Hare supplied.
- •The judge considered submissions from both counsel regarding interpretation of text messages, but did not explicitly declare a Newton Hearing.
- •Both defendants subsequently pleaded guilty, with the money laundering charges lying on file.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' and 'Newton Hearing' under Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2
Principles established in R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13 regarding fact-finding hearings for sentencing.
R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge did not conduct a fact-finding exercise that met the criteria for a Newton Hearing, despite considering the submissions. The judge’s consideration of submissions was not a finding of fact.