R v Stanley Cave
[2024] EWHC 107 (SCCO)
R v Steven Parle
4 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1762 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A law firm appealed a decision that reduced the amount they could claim for reviewing evidence in a criminal case. The judge decided that the firm should get paid for reviewing more evidence because, even though some of it was repeated, it was still important to look at. The law firm won most of the appeal and received costs.
Key Facts
- •IMS Law Limited appealed a Legal Aid Agency decision reducing the number of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) in their LGFS claim for representing Mr. Steven Parle.
- •The dispute centered on 3379 pages of electronic data from two exhibits (SH1.15092022 and SH1.17082022) seized from the defendant's phone.
- •Mr. Parle pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited firearm but disputed the circumstances.
- •The case involved a Newton hearing to determine the circumstances of possession.
- •Exhibit SH1.15092022 ('Full Extraction') contained various data categories, with images and videos being central to the dispute.
- •Exhibit SH1.17082022 ('Timeline' or 'Partial Extraction') contained data that allegedly duplicated information in SH1.15092022 but was considered by the defence to be important for initial review.
Legal Principles
Only served evidence and exhibits can be counted as PPE. Service can be informal but formal service is preferred.
Lord Chancellor v. SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
In determining PPE, the Determining Officer (or Costs Judge) considers the prosecution's initial view on the material's status, its importance to the trial, and whether the parties agreed on its status or sought a trial judge's ruling.
Lord Chancellor v. SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
If an exhibit is served electronically, there's discretion on whether to include it in PPE, considering its nature and relevance.
Lord Chancellor v. SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Subsequent duplication doesn't necessarily invalidate the inclusion of initially served material in the PPE count, especially if the initial material revealed issues leading to a subsequent, more complete disclosure.
R v. King [2019] (cited)
Duplication of material can override the solicitor's desire to review communications chronologically.
R v. Baptiste [2019] SCCO Ref: 189/18 (cited)
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 define what constitutes prosecution evidence for LGFS claims, including witness statements, exhibits, and interview records.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed in part.
The Costs Judge ruled that the totality of images from SH1.15092022 and all of SH1.17082022 should be included in the PPE count due to their relevance to the case, even considering some duplication. This was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the need for defence to review the materials, which was not fully considered by the respondent.
The Appellants' LGFS claim was assessed with a PPE count of 4275 pages.
This decision is based on the judge's assessment of the relevance and necessity of reviewing the disputed evidence, taking into account submissions from both parties and relevant case law.
The Appellants were awarded costs of £750 (+ VAT) plus the £100 already paid.
The appeal was largely successful.