R v Alli
[2023] EWHC 2512 (SCCO)
R v Samad Ali
9 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 14 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because they weren't paid enough for a criminal case. They thought they should get paid as if the trial started, but the judge decided it hadn't really started because important issues were never properly resolved before the defendant changed their plea to guilty. So, the lawyer didn't get the extra money.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning payment under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 Graduated Fee Scheme.
- •Appellant solicitors represented Samad Ali, who faced two charges of possessing Class A drugs.
- •Ali initially pleaded not guilty, relying on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 defence.
- •A positive National Referral Mechanism (NRM) decision was initially disclosed, but later deemed inadmissible due to R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731.
- •Trial was listed, but before it commenced, issues arose regarding the admissibility of expert evidence (Dr. Robinson's report) and an adjournment request.
- •The judge indicated that parts of the report were inadmissible as hearsay, leading Ali to plead guilty.
- •The dispute centers on whether the trial had begun in a 'meaningful sense' to determine appropriate payment (cracked trial vs. trial fee).
Legal Principles
Whether a trial has begun in a 'meaningful sense' determines whether a trial fee or cracked trial fee is payable under the Graduated Fee Scheme.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1(1) and Lord Chancellor v. Henery [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
Spencer J's principles in Lord Chancellor v. Henery guide determining whether a trial has begun; factors include jury being sworn, case opening, evidence called, and substantial case management.
Lord Chancellor v. Henery [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB), paragraph 96
R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731 established that certain NRM decisions are inadmissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.
R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that no substantial matters of case management were addressed before the change of plea. The defendant's attempts to secure an adjournment and admit inadmissible evidence did not constitute a trial beginning in a meaningful sense.