R v Rafiq & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1319 (SCCO)
R v Sohidul Mohamed
2 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 308 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
Three lawyers appealed because they thought they should be paid for two cases instead of one. The judge said that even though there was a new indictment, it was basically the same case, so they only got paid for one. Only one lawyer successfully appealed a smaller part of their claim. The judge explained carefully how they decided it was one case. It helps clarify when lawyers can get paid for more than one case.
Key Facts
- •Three appellant solicitors (Cousins Tyrer, Criminal Defence Solicitors, and Achillea & Co.) appealed Determining Officers' decisions regarding fees under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The appeals concerned whether the solicitors should receive one or two fees for representing defendants in a Crown Court case where an indictment was stayed and a new one preferred.
- •A co-defendant, Atif Mohammed, was found unfit to stand trial, leading to the stay and subsequent new indictment.
- •Achillea & Co. also appealed disallowances of disbursements.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of 'case' in Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Presumption against constructions leading to absurd or illogical results.
Bennion, Bailey and Norbury, 2017 edition para. 13.5
Court's power to give effect to Parliament's intention even if inadvertently omitted in drafting.
Inco Europe Limited v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
Determining whether a retrial occurred, considering factors such as procedural or temporal matrix, length of proceedings, and substantive differences in prosecution's case.
R v Nettleton [2013] 1 Costs LR
The definition of ‘case’ means proceedings in the Crown Court against any one assisted person— (a) on one or more counts of a single indictment.
Schedule 2, para. 1(a) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
Appeals unsuccessful except for Achillea & Co.'s disbursement appeal (settled post-hearing).
The court found that there was only one case against each defendant, despite the stay and preferment of a new indictment. The changes were considered procedural rather than substantive changes to the case.