R v Robert Brazendale
[2024] EWHC 108 (SCCO)
R v Rafiq & Ors
28 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1319 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because the government wouldn't pay them enough for defending a client who faced multiple trials. The client's charges changed drastically between trials, involving new offenses and co-defendants. The judge agreed that this amounted to two separate cases, entitling the lawyer to double the fees.
Key Facts
- •Yates Ardern Solicitors appealed a Legal Aid Agency (LAA) decision regarding fee payments for representing Mohammed Rafiq in a Crown Court case.
- •The case involved multiple trials due to jury discharge and indictment changes.
- •The dispute centered on whether there were one or two 'cases' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, impacting fee calculation.
- •The initial indictment involved conspiracy to murder; a second indictment added charges of perverting the course of justice and new defendants.
- •Substantial changes occurred between trials, including a new charge, additional defendants, and a significantly increased volume of evidence.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'case' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013: proceedings in the Crown Court against one assisted person on one or more counts of a single indictment.
Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1) of the 2013 Regulations
Severing an indictment into two creates two 'cases'; joining two indictments creates one 'case', each resulting in a graduated fee.
Interpretation of Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1) of the 2013 Regulations
Costs Judge decisions are not binding but may set principles incorporated into LAA guidance.
Case law precedent
Adding defendants or counts might be an amendment, not a new indictment, depending on the substantiality of the change.
Analysis of various cases, including R v Brazendale, R v Wharton, R v Moore
The court's decision to stay or quash an indictment is a significant factor in determining if there are multiple 'cases'.
Analysis of cases like R v Hussain, R v Ayomanor
Outcomes
The appeal was successful.
The court found two separate indictments and 'cases' existed due to the substantive changes in the second indictment, including a new charge, additional defendants, and significantly more evidence.
Two full trial fees were payable for the October 2021 and October 2022 trials.
The June 2022 indictment was not a mere amendment but a new case due to the substantial changes in charges and defendants.