R v Adeniji
[2024] EWHC 1320 (SCCO)
R v Tyrone Barton
3 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1328 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a decision on how much they should be paid for a court hearing. The question was whether the hearing was a full trial or a shorter one. The judge decided it was the shorter one because, while there were arguments, the main facts of the case were agreed upon by both sides.
Key Facts
- •EBR Attridge LLP appealed a Legal Aid Agency (LAA) decision regarding the fee for a hearing in Mr. Barton's case.
- •Mr. Barton pleaded guilty to two counts of drug conspiracy; the prosecution offered no evidence on a third count.
- •The hearing on June 29th, 2023, involved lengthy submissions from the prosecution and defense regarding Mr. Barton's role in the drug conspiracy, despite no evidence being heard.
- •The issue was whether the June 29th hearing should be classified as a 'trial' (Newton hearing) or a 'cracked trial' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The judge (HHJ Plaschkes KC) did not provide a view on the classification of the hearing.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'cracked trial' and 'Newton hearing' under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
A Newton hearing can be deemed to have taken place even without live evidence if evidence is read and/or contrasting submissions are made.
R v. Hodo [2015] SCCO Ref: 11/15
Whether a case was listed and prepared for as a Newton hearing are relevant considerations.
R v. Morfitt [2016] SCCO Ref: 55/16
A sentence hearing can be a Newton hearing if the judge determines factual issues not agreed upon by the prosecution and defense, even if no evidence is called.
R v. Makengele [2019] SC-2019-CRI-000072
Distinction between a Newton hearing (disputed facts) and a hearing resolving competing inferences on undisputed facts.
R v. Shehu [2023] SC-2022-CRI-000147
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The hearing on June 29th, 2023, should be classified as a 'cracked trial' because, while competing submissions were resolved, the underlying facts were not disputed. The court determined competing emphasis on agreed facts rather than disputed facts themselves.