R v Lastowski
[2024] EWHC 1854 (SCCO)
R v Taj
31 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 2070 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer claimed lots of time to review evidence in a big crime case. The judge said the lawyer could have done it much faster using computers and threw out the claim because it was too much time.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning a claim for payment under Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •Appellant (Yates Ardern) represented Imran Taj in a Crown Court case involving a conspiracy to steal high-value vehicles.
- •The prosecution served 18,520 pages of prosecution evidence (PPE), exceeding the 10,000-page cap.
- •Appellant claimed 399.9 hours for special preparation to review the excess PPE.
- •Determining Officer allowed 150 hours.
- •Appellant argued that the full 399.9 hours should be allowed given the duty to consider all evidence.
Legal Principles
Calculation of Graduated Fee for defence litigators based on PPE, subject to a 10,000-page cap, with additional payment for 'special preparation' allowed.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2
Definition of 'pages of prosecution evidence' (PPE) includes witness statements, exhibits, and interview records.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (2)-(5)
Special preparation fee may be paid for reviewing PPE exceeding 10,000 pages or for reviewing electronic exhibits that never existed in paper form, taking into account the time reasonably required.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 20
The appropriate officer must take into account all relevant circumstances of the case when determining a claim under paragraph 20
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 2, paragraph 20(5)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The claim of 399.9 hours was excessive, equating to 3 minutes per page regardless of content or importance, and could have been achieved in a fraction of the time using efficient electronic search methods. The case is similar to R v Lastowski [2024] EWHC 1854 (SCCO), where a similar claim was dismissed.