R v Knobel
[2024] EWHC 20 (SCCO)
R v Stallard
7 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 523 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed decisions about his legal aid payments. The court said he couldn't appeal the expense part, but considered the claim for payment for days he didn't work because the court was closed. Ultimately, the court said he wasn't entitled to this extra money because his case wasn't officially scheduled for those days.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by Lawrence Selby against the determining officer's calculation of fees and expenses under the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013).
- •Appeal concerns subsistence expenses and VAT on disbursements, and ineffective trial fees (TNP) for days the court did not sit during a murder/robbery trial.
- •Trial lasted from April 24, 2023 to May 31, 2023. Selby attended via video for the first week due to Covid.
- •The court did not sit for three full days due to judge's engagements and jury unavailability.
- •The determining officer disallowed the TNP fees as the case wasn't listed for those days.
Legal Principles
The determining officer's jurisdiction under Regulation 28 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 is limited to fees, not expenses.
R v Humfrey (SC-2020-CRI-000138)
An ineffective trial fee (TNP) is payable under Schedule 1, paragraph 16 of the 2013 Regulations only if the case was 'listed for trial' on the day it did not proceed.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraph 16
Guidance on TNP fees and Daily Attendance Fees (DAF) is provided in the Crown Court Fee Guidance, but its interpretation is subject to judicial interpretation and may lead to disputes.
Crown Court Fee Guidance (various versions)
Previous case law (R v Durnin) established that a TNP fee is not payable if the case was removed from the list before the day it was due to proceed.
R v Durnin (SCCO ref: 57/13)
Outcomes
Appeal regarding subsistence and VAT dismissed.
Expenses claims are not challengeable under Regulation 28(6). While the lack of reasoning for VAT deduction is criticised, there's no legal remedy available.
Appeal regarding TNP fees dismissed.
The case was not listed for the days in question, distinguishing it from situations where the case remained listed but did not proceed. The court considered the relevant guidance and case law (R v Durnin) and found that no fee was payable in this circumstance.