R v Lastowski
[2024] EWHC 1854 (SCCO)
R v Ramzan Hanif
27 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 272 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because the government wouldn't pay him for extra time spent reading difficult documents. The judge agreed that the documents were hard to read but said the lawyer's claim for time was too high. The lawyer got some of his money back and extra money for the trouble of appealing.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Legal Aid Agency's rejection of a claim for special preparation under the LGFS.
- •Appellant represented the defendant in a wounding with intent case where the Crown offered no evidence.
- •Appellant claimed 104 hours for reading 3022 pages of excess PPE (over the 700-page limit).
- •The Determining Officer rejected the claim due to the difficult format of the electronic evidence provided by the Crown.
- •Appellant argued that the format of the evidence made assessment of the time claimed reasonable.
- •The appeal was determined on the papers without an oral hearing.
Legal Principles
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as amended in 2020, govern the payment of special preparation for excess PPE.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Assessment of special preparation time cannot proceed by strictly empirical analysis (e.g., minutes per page).
Relevant jurisprudence (unspecified)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The format of the evidence should not prevent assessment of the claim. While 104 hours was deemed unreasonably high for the amount of PPE, the difficulty in accessing the material was considered.
Claim for special preparation assessed at 75 hours.
The Judge considered the 104 hours claimed to be unreasonably high given the volume of PPE, even accounting for the difficult format.
Appellant awarded £100 (appeal fee) + £125 (additional costs) + VAT.
Appellant was substantially successful in the appeal.