R v Rafiq & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1319 (SCCO)
R v Robert Brazendale
23 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 108 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because the government only paid him for one part of a trial, even though the charges against his client changed drastically several times. The court decided that the changes were so big it was like two separate cases, so the lawyer should get paid for both.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Legal Aid Agency's decision on Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) payment.
- •Appellant represented the defendant in a case involving conspiracy to murder, firearms, and drug supply charges.
- •Multiple indictments were filed and amended throughout the case, leading to a significant evolution of charges and defendants.
- •The prosecution stayed the initial indictments after a final, consolidated indictment was introduced.
- •The issue was whether the appellant was entitled to two separate fees (trial + cracked trial) or one (trial).
- •The case involved several prior decisions regarding the payment of two fees in similar situations.
Legal Principles
Determining whether a case constitutes 'two cases' for AGFS fee purposes based on the substantive changes to the indictment and not merely technical amendments.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as amended
Evolution of jurisprudence on the 'two-fees' issue, moving from a mechanical application of regulations to a more pragmatic approach considering the extent of changes and the judge's practice.
R v. Hussain [2011] 4 Costs LR 689; R v. Ayomanor [2020]; R v. Sharif [2014]; R v. Arbas Khan [2019]; R v. Gary Moore [2022] EWHC 1659 (SCCO); R v. Wharton [2021]; R v. Thomas [2022] EWHC 2842 (SCCO)
Outcomes
Appeal successful. The appellant is entitled to two fees (trial + cracked trial).
Substantive changes to the indictments, particularly between February and November 2021, constituted two distinct cases. The judge's decision to stay previous indictments reflected the substantial evolution of the alleged criminality.