R v James
[2024] EWHC 1753 (SCCO)
R v Shehu
9 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 3483 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a decision about how much they should be paid for representing a client. The disagreement was about whether a court hearing was a special kind of hearing ('Newton Hearing') that deserved a higher fee. The judge decided it wasn't a special hearing because there weren't any arguments about the facts, just about the sentence, so the lawyer didn't get the extra payment.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerns whether a trial fee or guilty plea fee is due under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Dispute centers on whether a 'Newton Hearing' took place on September 2, 2022.
- •Defendant pleaded guilty on August 6, 2021, but later submitted a basis of plea.
- •Prosecution did not accept the basis of plea, leading to submissions before the judge.
- •The judge sentenced the defendant, finding he played a significant role in the cannabis operation.
- •Appellant argued the September 2nd hearing constituted a Newton hearing due to the dispute and judicial finding.
- •Respondent argued it was a standard sentencing hearing with no factual disputes requiring resolution.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'Newton Hearing' as per Schedule 2, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, referencing R v Newton (1982).
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1
Treatment of a case as having gone to trial if a Newton hearing takes place, as per Schedule 2, paragraph 2(4) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 2(4)
Three forms of Newton Hearing identified in R v Robert John Newton (1983): resolution of disputed facts by jury, judge's decision based on evidence, or judge's decision based on counsel submissions.
R v Robert John Newton (1983) 77 Cr. App. R. 13
A Newton hearing requires a judge to resolve factual disputes by making findings of fact.
R v Newton principles as interpreted by the Costs Judge
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The hearing on September 2, 2022, was not a Newton hearing because the judge did not resolve any factual disputes. The judge made a finding on the defendant's role, but this was based on undisputed facts and application of sentencing guidelines.