R v O'Hare & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1317 (SCCO)
R v Smiley
24 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 2185 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer argued they deserved a higher fee because there was almost a 'fact-finding hearing' (Newton Hearing) in a drug case. The judge said the hearing was avoided, so the lawyer only got a lower fee.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning entitlement to a cracked trial fee or a trial fee under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The issue hinges on whether a Newton Hearing (fact-finding hearing for sentencing) took place.
- •Appellant represented the defendant charged with possession and supply of class B drugs.
- •Defendant pleaded guilty but the Crown rejected the basis of plea regarding the extent of supply.
- •A potential Newton hearing was discussed, but ultimately avoided after the defendant changed his plea.
- •The judge made observations on the evidence but didn't make a finding of fact.
- •The appellant argued that extensive submissions constituted a Newton hearing, citing R v Makengele.
- •The Determining Officer decided that a cracked trial fee was correct.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' and 'Newton Hearing' under Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1
Principles of R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13 regarding Newton Hearings (fact-finding for sentencing).
R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13
Previous case R v Makengele (SC-2019-CRI-000072, 6 January 2019) concerning the interpretation of a Newton Hearing.
R v Makengele (SC-2019-CRI-000072, 6 January 2019)
Three forms of Newton Hearings identified in R v Robert John Newton (1983) 77 Cr. App. R. 13.
R v Robert John Newton (1983) 77 Cr. App. R. 13
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge, while making observations, did not conduct a fact-finding exercise; the potential Newton hearing was avoided before substantial submissions were made. The case differs from R v Makengele.