R v Munemo
[2023] EWHC 1636 (SCCO)
R v Rimon Ali
1 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1699 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A solicitor appealed a low payment for representing a client. The disagreement was about how many pages of evidence there were. The judge decided some types of electronic evidence should have been counted, but also that counting spreadsheet pages needed a simpler method. The solicitor won partly, receiving a higher payment but less than they asked for in costs.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning payment to defence solicitors under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Dispute over the appropriate number of pages of Prosecution Evidence (PPE), specifically electronic PPE (EPPE).
- •Appellant claimed 2,556 pages of PPE, including EPPE (contacts, SMS, call logs, chats, searched items, web bookmarks, web history, locations, wireless records).
- •Determining Officer allowed 122 pages of non-electronic PPE and 1,326 pages of EPPE (LAA later increased EPPE to 1,446).
- •The case involved drug charges; the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser offense.
- •The prosecution used selected extracts from web history, web logs, instant messages, and notes.
Legal Principles
Served electronic evidence which has never existed in paper form may be excluded from the PPE count if the Determining Officer considers it appropriate. The key criterion is whether the evidence was of central importance to the trial.
Schedule 2, paragraph 1(5) of the 2013 Regulations; Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Where the prosecution relies on only part of electronic data, all data may need inclusion if fairly considered only in the light of the totality of data.
Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
If key prosecution evidence is extracted from a category of electronic data, all evidence in that category should generally be included in the PPE count.
Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB)
A pragmatic approach may be taken, such as allowing a percentage of a large body of data where only a small proportion is relevant.
R v Sereika (SCCO 168/13, 12 December 2018); The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
When assessing electronic material, a ‘rough and ready analysis’ or ‘sensible approximation’ is acceptable; the perfect shouldn't hinder the good.
The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
Removing blank pages and those of minimal value from spreadsheet print previews to calculate PPE count is acceptable, but over-pedantic approaches should be avoided.
The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB)
Outcomes
Appeal partially successful.
The court accepted some of the appellant's arguments regarding inclusion of certain categories of EPPE but rejected others. The court also refined the methodology for calculating the page count from spreadsheets.
Total PPE count set at 2,023 pages (122 non-electronic + 1,878 electronic).
The court adopted a methodology similar to the Determining Officer's, refining it in light of case law. Blank columns were removed from spreadsheets before calculating a print preview page count. A more robust approach was used when considering the relevant categories of electronic data.
Costs awarded at £750 (half the claimed amount).
The appeal was partially successful, and the court deemed the appellant's approach inconsistent with Lam & Meerbux in parts.