R v Cameron Gatherar
[2023] EWHC 2928 (SCCO)
R v Thuc Truong
27 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 1330 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a fee decision. He thought he should get paid more because the case was almost at trial before the guilty plea, but the judge said the rules say he only gets paid for a guilty plea because the defendant never said 'not guilty' first. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by Jonathan Turner against the assessment of counsel fees under the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme.
- •Case involved a guilty plea to producing cannabis after initial PTPH setting trial dates but no arraignment.
- •Defendant pleaded guilty two weeks before trial after counsel advised it was likely the defendant had served any potential sentence.
- •Dispute centered on whether the fee should be for a 'cracked trial' or a 'guilty plea' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •No arraignment occurred before the guilty plea; the defendant did not initially plead not guilty.
Legal Principles
Definitions of 'cracked trial' and 'guilty plea' under Schedule 1 of the 2013 Regulations (as amended).
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Interpretation of the amended definition of 'cracked trial' focusing on whether a plea was entered at any hearing before trial.
R v Lamin (175/19) and R v Jarir [2022] EWHC 2231 (SCCO)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court, following the reasoning in R v Lamin and R v Jarir, found that a guilty plea fee was payable because the defendant did not initially plead not guilty. The lack of an arraignment before the guilty plea did not qualify it as a 'cracked trial' under the amended regulations.